Public Statements

Ms Ginette Louise Blondel

The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Enforcement Powers Law”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc. (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Fiduciaries Law”)[1]

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 (“the Regulations”)[2]

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”)

The Code of Practice – Company Directors (“the Company Director Code”)

 

Ms Ginette Louise Blondel (“Ms Blondel”)

 

On 1 March 2024 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

  1. To impose a financial penalty of £210,000 on Ms Blondel under section 39(1) of the Enforcement Powers Law;
  1. To make a Prohibition Order under section 33(1) of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Ms Blondel from holding the position of controller, director, partner, manager, money laundering reporting officer and money laundering compliance officer for a period of 9 years and 1 month;
  1. Pursuant to section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law to disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Ms Blondel for a period of 9 years and 1 month; and
  1. To make this public statement under section 38(1) of the Enforcement Powers Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Ms Blondel breached the Fiduciaries Law by carrying out regulated activities without a licence and failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing as set out in Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law.

BACKGROUND

Ms Blondel, a Guernsey resident, holds an MSc in Corporate Governance and is an Associate of The Chartered Governance Institute. She worked in regulated financial services for fiduciary licensees in Guernsey from July 2000 until January 2013, her last such employment was between 2010 and January 2013.

Upon leaving regulated financial services, Ms Blondel commenced employment with Client 1 (which included related family structures) as his son’s Personal Assistant.  Client 1 had been a client of her previous employer. Client 1 was a high-risk client, due to being classified as a Politically Exposed Person (“PEP”), an alleged war criminal and kleptocrat; and who, from 2012, was under investigation for money laundering. Her employment as a consultant to Client 1 was subsequently confirmed by way of an agreement between Ms Blondel and a company ultimately owned by Client 1, dated 21 March 2014 (with a commencement date of 5 February 2013).  The agreement made no mention of a Personal Assistant role but provided that she would advise and assist Client 1 with its business and administration, including its financial activities.

Ms Blondel was introduced to Client 2’s family office at the end of 2014 and she started working for them informally in February 2015. Client 2, which had business relationships with licensees in Guernsey was also a high-risk client, consisting of a PEP family with alleged links to corrupt business practices.

The Commission first became aware, from open-source information, in mid-2021 that Ms Blondel may have been undertaking regulated activities without the requisite licence.

FINDINGS

The Commission commenced an  investigation (the “Investigation”) in September 2021. As a result of the Investigation the Commission identified:

Material Contraventions of the Fiduciaries Law

Section 1 of the Fiduciaries Law prohibits regulated activity from being carried out without the required licence being granted by the Commission. Section 2 of the Fiduciaries Law defines regulated activities.  Section 59(3) of the Fiduciaries Law states that a person is deemed to be carrying on activity “by way of business” where they receive any income, fee, emolument or other consideration in money or money’s worth for doing so.  Ms Blondel was found to have carried out the following activities, by way of business, without a licence:

  • the management and administration of trusts, and the provision of advice in relation to the management and administration of trusts including being willing to act as protector for trusts (section 2(1)(a) of the Fiduciaries Law); and
  • the management and administration of companies and the provision of advice in relation to the management and administration of companies, and acting as company secretary and director of companies (section 2(1)(b) of the Fiduciaries Law).

Ms Blondel would not have been permitted to undertake the activities of trust and corporate administration, even if she had held a personal fiduciary licence, which she did not, as such activities can only be carried out by a Bailiwick body (not an individual) holding a fiduciary licence.  

Breaches of the Regulations and the Handbook

Despite holding Customer Due Diligence and a certain amount of Enhanced Customer Due Diligence information on her clients, Ms Blondel did not have any Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism policies, procedures or controls in place, as are required under the Regulations and the Handbook, when undertaking regulated activities.

As a consequence, there was no formal risk assessment of either of the two high-risk clients, demonstrating that the risks associated with the relationship had been identified and relevant measures implemented to mitigate the risks identified such as taking reasonable measures to establish their source of wealth.

Ms Blondel did not have the required policies, procedures and controls in place to manage or mitigate the risk of providing services to these high-risk clients (including PEPs). She did not have measures in place to establish the source of funds and source of wealth of the clients or to review their activities, or monitor their transactions, which Ms Blondel was closely involved in. Such measures are required of licensed financial services businesses which are subject to supervision by the Commission. Ms Blondel was therefore in breach of Regulations 3, 5, 11 and 15 of the Regulations and the associated Rules within the Handbook.

Failure to comply with the Company Director Code

In failing to ensure that she, and the companies of which she was a director, complied with the Regulations and the Handbook, Ms Blondel was also in breach of Principle 7 of the Company Director Code.

Carrying out of regulated activity

Client 1

Client 1 had been a major client of Ms Blondel’s when she was employed as a Trust Manager at a previous Guernsey licensed fiduciary, where she stated she spent 99% of her full-time role working on Client 1 and all the related client trust and company structures.

Following her resignation in 2013, Client 1’s trust and company structures began migration to a Corporate Service Provider outside of the Bailiwick in mid-2014. Ms Blondel commenced employment directly for Client 1 in February 2013.

Client 1 was a PEP from a high-risk jurisdiction and an alleged war criminal and kleptocrat who, since 2012, Ms Blondel had known was under investigation for money laundering. In addition, there were several credible adverse media articles on Client 1, which Ms Blondel was fully aware of.

Appointment to Director positions for companies owned by Client 1

As part of her employment for Client 1, Ms Blondel accepted her first 2 directorships for client entities in May 2013, only 3 months after her employment commenced. Subsequently Ms Blondel went on to hold a total of 11 directorships for this client with the maximum number at any one point in time amounting to 8 for this client, which constitutes a breach of Section 1 of the Fiduciaries Law.

The Commission considers the provision of client directorships as evidence that her employment went far beyond that of a Personal Assistant, with the holding of such roles constituting an integral part of the services provided for her clients.

During the course of the Investigation the Commission identified numerous examples where Ms Blondel not only carried out trust and company administration but also, by way of her intimate knowledge of Client 1, provided advice to other service providers in relation to Client 1’s business.  The Commission consider these activities to have amounted to regulated activity as defined in the Fiduciaries Law. These examples are in addition to the directorships she provided to client entities, and are detailed below:

  • Provision of advice in relation to the transfer of Client 1 entities from a Guernsey regulated licensee to the new financial services provider;
  • Assisting new trustees in monitoring the payments on one of the companies in the structure which she would later become director of;
  • Advising the new trustees on how to manage loan positions between Client 1 family structures;
  • Giving instructions to a senior trust administrator, an employee of the new trustee, and providing draft wording for them to send to the previous trustees; and
  • Planning and advising on the closure of trusts.

The use of Ms Blondel’s personal bank account to facilitate payments on behalf of Client 1

During the course of the Investigation the Commission identified that Ms Blondel received an amount of €1m into her personal bank account on 23 October 2015 as advance fees in respect of a proposed Guernsey Trust company that Ms Blondel and another person were planning to establish. These funds were provided through a company owned by Client 1 following the sale of an asset belonging to the family structure.

Although the proposed venture did not proceed, Ms Blondel did not return these funds to the Client. Instead, Ms Blondel used the funds to make in excess of 150 payments to multiple third parties, on behalf of Client 1. The Commission considers these payments led to  a very real risk that Ms Blondel may have been used to launder the proceeds of crime, a risk which Ms Blondel has consistently failed to recognise.

Ms Blondel worked for Client 1 for a period of 7 years from 2013 to March 2020. In June 2020, Client 1 was convicted of money laundering and aggravated tax fraud in a European court and sentenced to 4 years in prison. Ms Blondel, and Guernsey as a jurisdiction, were named in a media article reporting this conviction, and therefore the reputation of the Bailiwick as an international financial centre has been materially damaged. Client 1 is currently subject to an international arrest warrant, which was issued in August 2022, in connection with alleged war crimes.

Client 2

Client 2’s family office was introduced to Ms Blondel in late 2014.

Client 2 comprised a PEP family from a high-risk Central Asian jurisdiction. Media sources from at least 2010 allege that the PEP family were involved in a monopolistic business empire, had close ties with the ruling family of the said jurisdiction; and had been allegedly involved in corrupt practices.

Ms Blondel was therefore aware of the very high-risk nature of this client family, and the risks she was taking on in providing services to them. Ms Blondel had been providing services independently to Client 1 for approximately 2 years at the time she took on the additional roles and responsibilities of Client 2.

Ms Blondel commenced her role with Client 2 in February 2015,  which included  providing directorships to 7 non-Guernsey companies and undertaking the associated company management and administration, by way of business. By August 2015 she was providing these services to 12 companies on behalf of Client 2. At the time Ms Blondel took on the last of these 12 directorships for Client 2 she was already holding 5 directorships for Client 1, meaning she simultaneously held a total of 17 directorships.

After resigning from the 12 directorships in February 2016, Ms Blondel entered into a Consultancy Agreement with the family office of Client 2 in September 2016. Under this Consultancy Agreement Ms Blondel provided services to the family office. The Agreement noted the consultancy services as being “Any and all such services as directed by the Directors of the Company; The Consultant shall conduct the Services in accordance with specifications set by the Company”. Under this agreement Ms Blondel continued to provide company administration services by, inter alia, managing property assets and reporting to the owners. This arrangement was in place until January 2018.

The family office of Client 2 subsequently moved to an alternative jurisdiction due to adverse media surrounding the family.  At that point, Ms Blondel entered into a new Consulting Agreement with a different company (still owned by the family office) in the new jurisdiction and continued to provide company administration services, including providing a directorship of a European company in which Client 2 had an ownership interest.

In October 2018, Ms Blondel took on two Company Secretarial positions for some non- Guernsey registered entities related to Client 2 and continued these positions until June 2021. Acting as Company Secretary is a regulated activity under the Fiduciaries Law; and the Commission viewed this as a further example of Ms Blondel assuming positions without complying with the legal and regulatory requirements.

The Commission’s Investigation found that Ms Blondel carried out regulated activities by way of business to Client 1 under the job title of a Personal Assistant to Client 1’s son; and as a Consultant to Client 2’s family office.

The Commission views carrying out regulated activity without a licence as a serious matter.  Ms Blondel’s actions demonstrate that, despite her extensive trust and company administration experience, she was not aware of her legal and regulatory obligations and demonstrated a lack of soundness of judgement allowing significant breaches to occur.

Aggravating Factors

Ms Blondel has consistently failed to understand the gravity and consequences of her actions.

Ms Blondel continued to provide services (for which she was remunerated until March 2020) for Client 1 and their family when she knew that Client 1, was under investigation for money laundering and was an alleged war criminal and kleptocrat.

Ms Blondel was aware of the regulated fiduciary regime. She also received legal advice which advised on several aspects of regulated activities. Despite this, she materially contravened the requirements of the Fiduciaries Law.

Given the high-risk nature of the clients she serviced, in particular in relation to Client 1 (who was ultimately convicted of organised money laundering of state funds of a high-risk country and aggravated tax fraud), Ms Blondel caused, (due to a media article naming Guernsey), reputational damage the Bailiwick as an International Finance Centre.

Ms Blondel failed to spontaneously disclose serious matters to the Commission, such as the conviction of Client 1.

Furthermore, the subsequent money laundering conviction of Client 1, demonstrates the serious risk caused by an individual providing services to such high-risk clients, including the provision of directorships, outside of the regulated environment and control frameworks that licensed fiduciaries are necessitated to employ.

Mitigating Factors

Ms Blondel brought to the Commission’s attention early on that she had contravened the Fiduciaries Law with her appointment to 12 companies for 12 months between February 2015 and February 2016, and apologised for this contravention.

Ms Blondel has cooperated with the Commission’s Investigation and has provided a considerable amount of information and documents to the Commission when requested to do so.

Ms Blondel agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty and the duration of Ms Blondel’s prohibition.

End

 

[1] Which replaced The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 with effect from 1 November 2021

[2] The Regulations were repealed and replaced by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1999 on 31 March 2019.

Fides Corporate Services Limited and Mr David Charles Housley Whitworth, Mr Paul Conway and Mr Stuart Turner

The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (the “Enforcement Powers Law”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)[1]

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 (the “Regulations”)

Schedule 3 to Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1999 (“Schedule 3”)[2]

The Handbook on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the “Handbook”)

The Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance (the “Code of Corporate Governance”)

The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business (the “Principles of Conduct”)

 

Fides Corporate Services Limited (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”)

and

Mr David Charles Housley Whitworth (“Mr Whitworth”)

Mr Paul Conway (“Mr Conway”)

Mr Stuart Turner (“Mr Turner”)

(together “the Directors”)

 

On 28 February 2024, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

  1. To impose a financial penalty of £140,000 on the Licensee under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law;
  2. To impose a financial penalty of £70,000 on Mr Whitworth under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law;
  3. To impose a financial penalty of £35,000 on Mr Conway under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law;
  4. To impose a financial penalty of £21,000 on Mr Turner under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law;
  5. To make an order under section 33 of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Whitworth from holding a supervised role for a period of 3 years and 6 months;
  6. To make an order under section 33 of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Conway from holding a supervised role for a period of 2 years and 10 months;
  7. To issue a Notice under section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law disapplying the exemption set out in 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Whitworth for a period of 3 years and 6 months;
  8. To issue a Notice under section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law disapplying the exemption set out in 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Conway for a period of 3 years and 6 months; and
  9. To make this public statement under section 38 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee, Mr Whitworth, Mr Conway and Mr Turner had failed to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements; and failed to meet the Minimum Criteria for Licensing pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law (the “MCL”). 

The findings in this case were serious and spanned a significant period, including after 13 November 2017 when The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2016 came into force, which increased the maximum level of financial penalties.

Background

The Firm was established in Guernsey in August 2009 and undertakes fiduciary activities under a full fiduciary licence. 

The Licensee provides the full range of trust and company services, including formation and administration of trusts, advice on formation and administration of trusts and the provision of trustees. The Licensee also provides company administration services, including company and/or corporate administration, company formation, provision of directors and secretaries, nominee services, registered office and registered agent services.

Mr Whitworth has been a Shareholder Controller of the Licensee since it was incorporated in August 2009.  He was a Director of the Firm from August 2009 to December 2019 and was the Compliance Officer from October 2009 to January 2019.

Mr Conway was a Director and the Nominated Officer of the Firm from October 2015 to March 2023.

Mr Turner was a Senior Manager at the Firm from March 2018.  He has been a Director of the Firm and its Compliance Officer since January 2019.  Mr Turner has also been the Money Laundering Compliance Officer (“MLCO”) at the Firm since March 2019 and its Money Laundering Reporting Officer (“MLRO”) since March 2020.

The Commission’s investigation began following an on-site visit to the Licensee in July 2021 which identified breaches of the regulatory requirements in 70% of the client files reviewed.  This was despite a remediation programme having been purportedly completed by the Licensee following a previous Commission visit in 2017.  An inspector was appointed under section 8 of the Enforcement Powers Law as part of the investigation (the “Inspector”).

Findings

The Inspector identified breaches in all of the client files it reviewed, as well as in the corporate governance of the Firm.  In particular, the investigation found:

The Licensee failed to carry out and regularly review relationship risk assessments

The Regulations, Schedule 3 and the rules in the Handbook require that in order for a financial services business to consider the extent of its potential exposure to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing it must assess the risk of any proposed business relationship prior to the establishment of that relationship and regularly review such a risk assessment so as to keep it up to date.

The Inspector found that half of the files reviewed were inappropriately risk assessed at take-on.

Client 1

In the case of Client 1, shortly after it agreed to provide director, administrator, registered office, registered agent and company secretary services to the company, the Licensee became aware that the ultimate beneficial owner (“UBO”) intended to issue bearer shares through the company.  The Licensee failed to evidence that it had taken this high-risk indicator into account when conducting its risk assessment, in breach of the Rules in the Handbook.

Client 2

The Licensee failed to correctly risk assess Client 2, rating it from low risk to medium risk from 2012 to 2020, despite the UBO having adverse media relating to bribery and corruption, religious friction, its use of offshore accounts as well as court cases related to acquisitions of properties and political unrest.

Client 3

Client 3 was appropriately rated high-risk by the Licensee due to the UBO’s links to the oil and gas industry as well as to certain high-risk jurisdictions and government officials, however, several high-risk factors present in the relationship were not fully considered by the Firm and therefore measures to mitigate them were inadequate.  This unlisted technology company, which the Licensee provided registered office and registered agent services to, was valued at $6-10 billion in 2020 and $225 billion in 2021.  The Firm failed to risk assess the validity of the valuations provided to them by the UBO, despite being aware that shareholders had specifically raised their concerns about the validity of such high valuations with him.

The Licensee failed to identify the customer and understand the ownership and control structure of a customer

Deficiencies in the customer due diligence (“CDD”) held by the Firm were found in all of the files reviewed by the Inspector, in breach of the Regulations/Schedule 3 and the Handbook, including incomplete identification and verification of the customer and underlying principals and inadequate certification of verification documents.

In addition, in three of the client files, the Firm did not have adequate information on the underlying beneficial ownership. 

Trust 1

In the case of Trust 1, the Licensee acted as Trustee and also provided registered office and registered agent and company secretarial services to the underlying companies owned by the Trust.  The Inspector found no evidence that appropriate verification of identity documentation had been obtained by the Firm on the client or its underlying UBOs until four years after the start of the relationship.

The Regulations and Schedule 3 require a financial services business to make a determination as to whether the customer, beneficial owner and any underlying principal is a politically exposed person (“PEP”).  Despite holding the evidence on file, from the outset of the relationship, which indicated that the underlying client was a PEP, the Licensee incorrectly risk rated the relationship as ‘normal risk’ and failed to identify the existence of a PEP in Trust 1 for the first five years of the relationship. 

The Licensee failed to comply with the Rules in the Handbook relating to Introducer Relationships

The Handbook requires a financial services business, when establishing an introducer relationship, to satisfy itself that the introducer has appropriate risk-grading procedures in place to differentiate between the CDD requirements for high and low risk relationships and conducts appropriate and effective CDD procedures in respect of its customers, including enhanced CDD measures for PEP and other high-risk relationships.

Financial services businesses are also required to have a programme of testing to ensure that introducers are able to fulfil the requirement that certified copies or originals of the identification data will be provided upon request and without delay.

Client 1

The Firm relied on an introducer relationship in the case of Client 1.  Client 1, a Guernsey company incorporated in 2006, became a client of the Licensee in 2011.  It was wholly owned by a regulated UK entity to hold shares, warrants and other investments on behalf of the group.  The assets were funded by loans from the group’s clients.

In May 2012, the Licensee was informed by the group that funds loaned to Client 1 had been transferred through a complex structure and that the bearer notes from Client 1 had been issued to two companies in another jurisdiction.  These companies were owned by two other companies incorporated in a third jurisdiction, which in turn were owned through two foundations in a fourth jurisdiction.  The Licensee relied upon an introducer certificate provided by the group detailing the identity of the UBOs and Mr Whitworth visited the group office to view the CDD they held on file for the two individuals, which he deemed to be appropriate.

The Commission noted open-source adverse media which linked the individual who ultimately funded Client 1 with the Mafia, as well as highlighting links to allegations of money laundering from as early as July 2011. There was no evidence that the Licensee had considered this, or later such reports which were published in 2015 and 2016.  The adverse media was not noted by the Firm until a risk review in 2017 but there was no evidence that it was referred to the MLRO, although the relationship risk rating was increased to high at that point due to other factors such as country risk, bearer notes and other information which had been available to the Firm for the duration of the relationship.

A review of the relationship and the introducer’s files in 2018 revealed that the introducer had not appropriately risk assessed the client as high risk and held no corroborating documents relating to the source of funds or source of wealth for the underlying clients who had funded Client 1.    

No evidence was seen to demonstrate that the Firm had complied with the requirements of the Regulations and Handbook with regard to Introducer relationships.

The Licensee failed to carry out Enhanced Customer Due Diligence (“ECDD”) and Enhanced Measures

The Regulations, Schedule 3 and the relevant provisions of the Handbook detail the ECDD requirements required for high-risk customers and, in particular, the requirement to take reasonable measures to establish the source of any funds (“SOF”) and of the source of wealth (“SOW”) of the customer, beneficial owner and underlying principal.

Schedule 3 requires firms to carry out enhanced measures on customers who were not resident in the Bailiwick (whether assessed as high risk or otherwise).  The Handbook provides guidance on what type of action may be taken by firms to comply with this requirement.   

The Handbook requires ECDD to be carried out where the customer has issued, or has the potential to issue, bearer shares.

In four of the cases where the Inspector found the risk of the relationship had been incorrectly assessed as standard or medium, no ECDD had been carried out and the SOF and SOW of the customer had not been established.  In the case of Trust 1, the PEP status was not recognised until five years after the relationship commenced, however, ECDD was not then conducted on the customer when the risk rating was increased to high.

In the files reviewed for Client 3 and two related foundations, which were rated by the Licensee as high-risk at the outset of each of the relationships in 2020, no evidence was found to demonstrate that the Licensee had established the SOF and SOW.

The Inspector found no evidence of enhanced measures being carried out in any of the applicable files reviewed.

In the case of Client 1, the Firm was aware at the outset of the relationship that the intention was for the customer to issue bearer shares.  This was not considered in the original risk assessment and no ECDD was conducted then, or later on in the relationship when the Firm issued bearer notes on behalf of the customer.

The Licensee failed to Monitor Activity and Transactions

Firms are required to perform ongoing and effective monitoring of existing business relationships, including scrutiny of any transactions or other activity. For high-risk clients there must be more frequent and more extensive monitoring.

The Inspector found that the Firm’s monitoring policies and procedures were not effective in four of the files reviewed. Reviews were not consistently carried out in accordance with procedures and no evidence was seen of the adequacy of the reviews.  In the case of Client 2, the client’s due diligence was still deficient nine years into the relationship.

The Licensee failed to ensure it had appropriate and effective AML/CFT procedures and failed to review its compliance with the Regulations/Schedule 3

The Regulations and Schedule 3 require firms to ensure that their policies, procedures and controls on forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing are appropriate and effective, having regard to the assessed risk.  There is also a requirement to establish and maintain an effective policy, for which responsibility must be taken by the board, for the review of its compliance and such policy shall include provision as to the extent and frequency of such reviews. The Handbook requires the board to ensure that the compliance review policy takes into account the size, nature and complexity of the business and includes a requirement for sample testing of the effectiveness and adequacy of the policy, procedures and controls.

Despite being aware of deficiencies in the AML/CFT policies and procedures of the Firm and confirming to the Commission in 2017 that these were being remediated, the board of the Licensee failed to bring the Firm into compliance with the Regulations and implement effective and appropriate AML/CFT controls.  The Inspector found that that the Firm took a tick-box approach to reviewing compliance and its compliance monitoring programme was therefore ineffective.  Insufficient attention was paid by the board to reviewing the effectiveness of compliance, as demonstrated by the lack of record of discussion in board meeting minutes and the failure to address deficiencies raised or to put in place a plan to remedy them.

The Licensee’s Board of Directors and systems of control were ineffective

In accordance with the Code of Corporate Governance and the Principles of Conduct, directors have responsibility for supervising the affairs of the business and must operate in accordance with all the relevant legislation.

The board should provide suitable oversight of risk management and maintain a sound system of risk measurement and control and firms must organise and control their internal affairs in a responsible manner, ensuring that it has well-defined compliance procedures.

Financial institutions should deal with the Commission in an open and cooperative manner and keep the Commission promptly informed of anything concerning the financial institution which might reasonably be expected to be disclosed to it in accordance with the Principles of Conduct.

The numerous examples of non-compliance with applicable laws, regulations, rules, codes and principles evidenced by the Commission above, demonstrate that the board of the Licensee failed to effectively direct and supervise the affairs of the business.  Information provided to the board by third party compliance consultants, as well as its own compliance staff and internal consultants was not adequately considered and acted upon to ensure that the Firm’s failings were remediated and recurrence prevented.  Rather than inform the Commission that remediation had not been satisfactorily completed, the Firm gave assurances that all risk mitigation programme (“RMP”) points had been met. 

Despite having engaged a consultant to carry out a gap analysis of its corporate governance, the Firm was unable to demonstrate to the Inspector that it had produced a meaningful plan of action to address the short comings.

The Firm, Mr Conway and Mr Turner failed to avoid, manage or minimise conflicts of interest

The Code of Corporate Governance states that boards should establish, implement and maintain an effective conflicts of interest policy and that directors have a duty to avoid, manage or minimise conflicts of interest and should, wherever possible, arrange their personal and business affairs so as to avoid direct or indirect conflicts of interest. In addition, directors have a duty to act in the best interests of the company.

The Principles of Conduct also require a financial services business to either avoid any conflict of interest or ensure fair treatment to all its customers by disclosure, internal rules of confidentiality, declining to act or otherwise.

Despite having a conflicts of interest policy which included a conflicts’ register, the board of the Licensee failed to maintain an effective conflicts of interest policy. 

Client 3

In lieu of payment of fees, the Firm accepted shares in Client 3 and Mr Turner, Mr Conway and several other members of staff also received shares from Client 3 as a reward for services.  The purported value of the shares gifted to Mr Turner and Mr Conway and others as at March 2021 was USD315 million each. The UBO of Client 3 had the right to unilaterally remove shares from shareholders at any time, thus potentially giving the UBO the ability to exercise control over the Firm.

Although the gifts of shares were recorded on the Firm’s conflicts of interest register, no attempt by Mr Turner, Mr Conway or the Firm to avoid or minimise the direct conflict of interest posed by accepting shares in Client 3 was evidenced and no effective management of the conflict was found to be in place.

The Directors failed to act in the best interests of the company

The extent of the breaches identified on the client files and the Firm’s failure to complete the requirements of the RMP following the 2017 on-site visit evidence that the Directors have failed to fulfil their fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the company in accordance with the Code of Corporate Governance.

Mr Whitworth

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Whitworth failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements of the MCL as he demonstrated a lack of competence, sound judgement and diligence by allowing clients to be incorrectly risk-rated, accepting and relying on inadequate due diligence from clients and introducers and failing to address deficiencies identified at the Firm he managed, whilst providing unsubstantiated assurances to the Commission.

Mr Conway

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Conway failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements of the MCL as he demonstrated a lack of competence, sound judgement and diligence by failing to ensure that remediation action was completed and was effective, prior to confirming to the Commission that it was.  Mr Conway also allowed clients to be incorrectly risk assessed without adequate measures taken to address the risk they posed and failed to avoid, manage or minimise a direct conflict of interest.

Mr Turner

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Turner failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements of the MCL as he demonstrated a lack of competence, experience, sound judgement and diligence by failing to ensure that compliance standards at the Firm had improved as a result of the remediation action purportedly undertaken prior to his employment and his acceptance of the MLCO/MLRO role in particular.  Mr Turner also failed to avoid, manage or minimise a direct conflict of interest.

Aggravating Factors

The findings in this case were serious and systemic and persisted despite reassurances made to the Commission that remediation was being undertaken following the on-site visit to the Firm in 2017.

The Firm and Mr Turner fail to recognise the severity of the risk presented by the conflict of interest with Client 3.

Mitigating Factors

Mr Turner joined the board of the Licensee in 2019, after the purported completion of the remediation programme.  Furthermore, Mr Turner has cooperated fully with the Commission and has been instrumental in attempting to resolve certain issues arising during the course of the investigation.

The Licensee and the Directors agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties and the duration of the Prohibitions.

End


[1] Which replaced the Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Client Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 with effect from 1 November 2021.

[2] Which replaced the Regulations on 31 March 2019.

Mr Iskander Karam

The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Enforcement Powers Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the 2020 POI Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (“the 1987 POI Law”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc. (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Fiduciaries Law”)

 

Mr Iskandar Karam (“Mr Karam”)

 

Also known as:

 

Mr Alexander Karam; and

Mr Alexander Kaymen

 

On 23 January 2024 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

 

  1. To impose a financial penalty of £10,000 on Mr Karam under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law;

 

  1. To make an order under section 33 of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Karam from any function for a period of two years;

 

  1. To issue a Notice under section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law disapplying the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Karam for a period of two years; and

 

  1. To make this public statement under section 38 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

 

BACKGROUND

Mr Karam was the controller of an investment manager licensed under the 1987 POI Law and was a director of a collective investment scheme authorised under the 1987 POI Law.  As such, Mr Karam was required to complete a Personal Questionnaire form.  Mr Karam submitted his Personal Questionnaire on 20 February 2018 in connection with the application for licensing of the investment manager and for the authorisation of the collective investment scheme.

Pursuant to section 38(2) of the 1987 POI Law, a person who in connection with an application for a licence, or in connection with an application for a licence, or in connection for an authorisation, or registration of a collective investment scheme, furnishes information, or recklessly makes a statement which he knows is false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly furnishes information, or makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular is guilty of an offence.

FINDINGS

The Commission’s investigation (“the Investigation”) commenced in June 2020 following the investment manager and collective investment scheme being placed into Administration Management. 

The Investigation found that Mr Karam had deliberately or recklessly made a number of false and/or misleading statements in his Personal Questionnaire submitted in connection with an application for a licence and for the authorisation of a collective investment scheme.  As a result, the Commission found that Mr Karam had materially contravened the requirements of the 1987 POI Law and did not meet the fit and proper requirements set out in the Minimum Criteria for Licensing contained in Schedule 4 to the 2020 POI Law.

Mr Karam’s Employment History

Mr Karam stated on his Personal Questionnaire that he had been employed as a “Board Member” of Company A since March 2002.  However, the Commission’s research showed that Company A was only incorporated in March 2012, some ten years after Mr Karam stated that he commenced employment with Company A.  The Commission’s research also showed that Mr Karam was not appointed as a director of Company A until March 2019, some seventeen years after the date shown on his Personal Questionnaire.

At the time of the incorporation of Company A, Mr Karam’s wife was the sole director and Mr Karam was named as the contact for any queries on the application for incorporation.  Therefore, Mr Karam must have known that the date given on his Personal Questionnaire for his employment as a “Board Member” of Company A was false or misleading. Further, it was conceded in oral representations that there was never a Board of Directors for Company A or any related company and that the term ‘Board’ was used a shorthand to describe advisors to the business over the period of its operation.

Mr Karam subsequently explained in oral representations that Company A was branded as Company B, which acted as a sole trader, prior to 2008 when Company B was formed.  Records for Company B show that Mr Karam was never a director of Company B.  Mr Karam also subsequently explained in oral representations that the business had existed in various forms over the period and eventually became Company A.

Records for other companies related to Company B show that Mr Karam changed his name from Alexander Karam to Alexander Kaymen in 2005.  Whilst Mr Karam noted on his Personal Questionnaire that he was known as Alexander Karam, he failed to note that he was also known as Alexander Kaymen.

Mr Karam’s Job Description

Mr Karam stated on his Personal Questionnaire that his role of “Board Member” of Company A included responsibility for personnel, remuneration, communication between global offices and financial modelling.  However, internet research did not find any substantial details for Company A.

The accounts for Company A for the year ending 30 March 2018 did not demonstrate that Company A was a large company that would require Mr Karam to be responsible for such issues as personnel, remuneration, communication between global offices or financial modelling.  Indeed, the accounts showed that the average number of employees during the year to 30 March 2018 and the year to 30 March 2017 was one. 

Mr Karam’s description of his role as a “Board Member” of Company A from 2002 to 2018 was false and was misleading.

Mr Karam’s Other Relevant Experience

In relation to other relevant experience, Mr Karam stated on his Personal Questionnaire that he was a member of the Advisory Committee for a Chamber of Commerce, endorsed by the UK Government.

The Commission’s research showed that the Chamber of Commerce noted on Mr Karam’s Personal Questionnaire was, in fact, a company owned by Mr Karam’s wife.  Mr Karam’s wife was also the only director of the Chamber of Commerce. 

In an email between advisers and copied to Mr Karam six months after the submission of his Personal Questionnaire, the Chamber of Commerce was described as being inactive since incorporation, that there were no patrons, chairman or advisory board and no income was received through membership fees or from any other sources since incorporation.  Mr Karam did not correct his advisers in writing. 

It was conceded that the Chamber of Commerce did not itself receive official endorsement from the UK Government, Mr Karam relied upon a memorandum of understanding between an organisation of which the Chamber of Commerce was itself a member, and the UK Government.

Mr Karam conceded that there was no Advisory Committee and that the expression was used as shorthand in relation to his advisory role to the Chamber of Commerce.

This was a further false and/or misleading statement by Mr Karam.

Aggravating Factors

The Commission relies on licensees and prescribed persons to conduct themselves in a manner that is open and honest.  The Commission does not have the resources to verify all of the information that is provided to it and nor should it have to.  Therefore, the provision of false and/or misleading information to the Commission is treated as an extremely serious matter.

The Personal Questionnaire is one of the primary tools for the Commission to gather information to assess whether a person is fit and proper to hold a prescribed position in relation to an application for a licence.  The provision of false and/or misleading information in a Personal Questionnaire undermines the application process.

Chamberlain Heritage Services Limited, Mr Christopher Henry Shaw, Mr John Adam Robilliard, Mr Bruce David McNaught

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Business and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”)

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”)

The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (theInsurance Business Law”)

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (theBanking Law”) (together “the Regulatory Laws”)

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”);

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the “Handbook”)

The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business (the “Principles”)

The Code of Practice – Corporate Service Providers (the “CSP Code”)

The Code of Practice – Trust Service Providers (the “TSP Code”)

The Code of Practice Company Directors (theDirectors Code”) (togetherthe Fiduciaries Law Codes”)

The Code of Practice – Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance (the “Code of Corporate Governance”)

 

Chamberlain Heritage Services Limited (“CHSL”)

Mr Christopher Henry Shaw (“Mr Shaw”)

Mr John Adam Robilliard (“Mr Robilliard”)

Mr Bruce David McNaught (“Mr McNaught”)

On 23 March 2021, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

  • To impose a financial penalty of £100,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Shaw;
  • To make orders under section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law, Section 34E of the POI Law, Section 28A of the Insurance Business Law, Section 18A of the IMII Law and section 17A of the Banking Law, prohibiting Mr Shaw from holding the position of director, controller, partner, or manager for a period of 10 years;
  • To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Shaw for a period of 10 years;
  • To impose a financial penalty of £40,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Robilliard;
  • To make orders under section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law, Section 34E of the POI Law, Section 28A of the Insurance Business Law, Section 18A of the IMII Law and section 17A of the Banking Law, prohibiting Mr Robilliard from holding the position of director, controller, partner, or manager for a period of 6 years;
  • To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Robilliard for a period of 6 years;
  • To impose a financial penalty of £15,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr McNaught; and
  • To issue this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

No prohibition orders were made in respect of Mr McNaught due to the fact he was prohibited under each of the Regulatory Laws from holding the position of director, controller, partner or manager until 8  June 2022 and the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law was also disapplied in respect of Mr McNaught until that date.

But for the fact that CHSL: (i) has been under new ownership since 30 November 2017; (ii) surrendered its licence in October 2019; and (iii) is currently in liquidation; the Commission would, if the circumstances had been different, have imposed a financial penalty of £100,000 on CHSL under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The publication of this public statement was delayed in order to allow certain parties to complete the statutory appeal process.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that CHSL, Mr Shaw, Mr Robilliard and Mr McNaught failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing as set out in Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law (and also Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Supervision Law, and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law, which set out the minimum criteria under these Laws).

Background

CHSL is a Guernsey company, incorporated on 26 September 1997. Mr Shaw was the founder, majority shareholder and Managing Director from inception until 30 November 2017. Mr Robilliard was an executive director of CHSL from 22 February 2016 to 16 November 2017. Mr McNaught was an executive director from 4 May 2010 to 7 April 2016, MLRO from 20 December 2001 to 1 January 2007 & 14 November 2014 to 7 April 2016. In addition, Mr McNaught was a controller from 10 December 2013 to 7 April 2016.

CHSL was licensed under the Fiduciaries Law on 4 July 2002 and its primary activities were the management and administration of trusts and companies, provision of individual or corporate directors, provision of individual or corporate secretaries, registered office services and nominee services.

CHSL was acquired by another trust company licensed by the Commission on 30 November 2017. Mr Shaw remained with the new owners as a non-executive director until 22 March 2018.

Following the acquisition of the business of CHSL, the Commission became aware of matters relating to a number of client files which appeared to suggest breaches of the laws, regulations, rules, codes and principles governing the business had occurred.

As a result of the subsequent investigation the Commission identified serious failings in six client relationships which fell into the following categories:

Breaches of the Regulations and the Rules in the Handbook

  • The Licensee had not properly conducted a relationship risk assessment taking into account relevant high-risk factors, and had not regularly reviewed this assessment;
  • The Licensee had failed to carry out customer due diligence and enhanced customer due diligence in relation to a high-risk customer, operating in a high-risk jurisdiction, including failure to establish the source of wealth and source of funds;
  • The Licensee failed to conduct ongoing monitoring of an existing relationship;
  • The Licensee failed to comply fully with Instruction 6 of 2009; and
  • The Licensee failed to ensure proper books and records were kept.

Failure to comply with the Principles, the Fiduciaries Law Codes and the Code of Corporate Governance

  • The Licensee failed to act and conduct its business with integrity;
  • The Licensee failed to act in the beneficiaries’ best interests;
  • The Licensee failed to obtain client agreements;
  • Mr Shaw and Mr McNaught failed to treat the company as a separate legal entity from its shareholders; and
  • The Directors failed to take collective responsibility for directing and supervising the affairs of the business.

Findings

Failure to carry out Customer Due Diligence and Enhanced Customer Due Diligence, failure to comply with Instruction 6 of 2009 and failure to ensure proper books and records were kept.

Client A was a high-risk client of CHSL’s since 1998 and was jointly owned by two nationals from a high-risk country. The purpose of the client’s company was to receive royalty payments from that high-risk country via an intermediate European company. The royalty payments purportedly related to the manufacture and sale of cosmetic retail products. The sole asset of the company was a c. $7.m cash deposit (as at May 2018) which was held in an account in Guernsey. Mr Shaw was a director of Client A along with Mr McNaught and latterly Mr Robilliard.

The point of contact for the client was via a person purportedly acting on behalf of the beneficial owners of the client structure. No due diligence was ever conducted on this person and CHSL relied upon a handwritten note from 1997 which was obtained by the previous administrator as authorisation to accept instructions from this individual. This was a breach of Regulation 4(3)(b) of the Regulations which requires that any person purporting to act on behalf of the customer shall be identified and his identity and his authority to act shall be verified.

Not only was communication with this client conducted with an individual where due diligence had not been undertaken, it was also conducted via personal Hotmail accounts of Mr Shaw.

In utilising non-CHSL email accounts as a sole means of written communication, the complete electronic record of emails exchanged has been lost to CHSL. This is a breach of Regulation 14(4)(a) which provides that documents must be readily retrievable.

The source of wealth and source of funds information on Client A was inadequate, consisting of documents that were poorly translated, and in some cases undated, expired and unsigned. There was no documentary evidence to support the provenance of incoming funds, in particular no active agreement supporting the payment of royalties.

This was a breach of Regulation 5 requiring enhanced due diligence (including obtaining source of wealth and source of funds information) to be conducted for high-risk business. This, together with the breach of Regulation 4(3)(b) demonstrate that the licensee failed to comply with Instruction 6, 2009 which required licensees to review policies, procedures and controls in place in respect of existing customers to ensure that the requirements of regulations 4 and 8 of the Regulations and each of the rules in Chapter 8 of the Handbook were met.

Issues with enhanced due diligence were noted on periodic reviews for the client conducted in 2015, 2016 and 2017. One periodic review also detailed that the fees for the client fell outside the standard parameters of the Firm, and could be considered abnormal for a client with virtually no activities. The Commission noted during its investigation that Mr Shaw, Mr McNaught and a fellow director had personally signed off periodic reviews.

The true ownership of the company was not clearly understood by CHSL. Reference was made to the joint shareholders holding the shares in their capacity as directors of an underlying foundation in the high-risk jurisdiction in which they resided, however, no evidence linking the foundation to Client A was obtained to corroborate this and no due diligence was undertaken on the foundation.

In February 2018, Mr Shaw received a request (which he communicated to another director) to change the ownership of Client A. The request was for one of the equal joint owners to transfer their entire shareholding to the other shareholder. Despite the company holding cash deposits of c.$7m at the time, Mr Shaw instructed a fellow director to arrange for the share transfer without documenting any rationale for the request.

The approach adopted of obtaining signed stock transfer documentation without any clear or coherent explanation for a significant change to the shareholding in Client A demonstrates a lack of prudence, integrity and professional skill, particularly where the client is high-risk and there is a lack of visibility around the source of wealth and source of funds.

Failure to conduct business with integrity.

Client C was a simple cash holding company, with corporate records clearly indicating that ownership lay with an individual resident in a Commonwealth country, whose father (resident in the UK) had also been involved in setting up the company and had provided the funds held in it. Due diligence was conducted on the beneficial owner at the time of take on by CHSL and certified documents verifying her identity were held on file.

Mr McNaught was the relationship manager for Client C until his departure after which time, Mr Shaw reviewed the file and noted that there may be tax implications for the beneficial owner in her country of residence. At this time CHSL held the shares in Client C on behalf of the beneficial owner.

Mr Shaw then embarked on a course of action whereby he portrayed a false scenario to professional tax advisors and accountants in the UK and the aforementioned Commonwealth country who he had engaged to assist with a proposed transfer of ownership. In each case, he provided the professional advisors with information which he knew was false and wholly contradicted the facts held in Client Cs file: namely that the father was in fact the owner of Client C, and was looking to gift it to the documented owner, his daughter. Evidence showed that Mr Shaw knew the true position which was that the documented owner was the daughter and there was therefore no basis for the father to be gifting his daughter her own company, other than to avoid tax.

The Commission found that Mr Shaw demonstrated a lack of probity and soundness of judgement in providing misleading information to professional advisers.

The Commission is extremely concerned by Mr Shaw’s behaviour with regards to Client C, which caused CHSL to fail to conduct business with integrity as required by Principle 1 of the Principles and Principle 2 of the CSP Code.

Client D consisted of two property-owning entities which were established for the trading of UK property assets. Mr Robilliard introduced this client to CHSL and was the relationship manager during his time at the company.

During a property transaction, the son of the documented beneficial owner of client D (and the main point of contact for this client) requested that ownership of the two property owning entities should be “cloaked” and someone else put forward to “front” the companies, i.e. deliberately disguise the true ownership of Client D.

Despite Mr Robilliard being aware of the seriousness of what Client D was requesting, in July 2017 he proposed a solution, that the company be beneficially owned by someone else. He then facilitated a change in ownership to an associate of the real beneficial owner and recorded this individual as the new beneficial owner, without any commercial rationale for the change. He also provided specific advice on how the new “owner” should respond to a due diligence request from CHSL about the source of funds to be used. His advice encouraged the supply of inadequate information. The former owner injected funds to facilitate the property acquisitions and continued to instruct CHSL on matters relating to the companies.

Mr Robilliard’s actions demonstrate a lack of prudence, integrity, diligence, competence and soundness of judgement, and a lack of knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations of his position as a director of the Firm.

Understanding the beneficial ownership of a company – which includes both the natural person/s that directly or indirectly own the company and those who exert effective control over that company through other means, is a key aspect of the Bailiwick’s AML/CFT framework. In this instance other financial and professional firms servicing those transactions, who are also obligated to undertake CDD, were being deliberately misled about the company’s beneficial ownership.

Mr Robilliard’s behaviour as regards Client D caused CHSL to fail to conduct business with integrity as required by Principle 1 of the Principles and Principle 2 of the CSP Code.

Failure to act in the best interests of beneficiaries

Principle 4 of the TSP Code states that Trust Service Providers (“TSPs”) should treat the interests of beneficiaries as paramount, subject to their legal obligations to other persons or bodies. In particular, TSPs should agree a clear fee structure in advance of taking an appointment and charge fees in accordance with that and in a fair and transparent manner.

As part of its investigation the Commission reviewed five Trust structures relating to one family (“the Family Trusts”). In 2012, the family requested that the Family Trusts be closed down.

Mr Shaw was the relationship manager for these clients and worked on the closure of the Family Trusts, along with Mr McNaught and another fellow director. The work included the taking of closure fees amounting to approximately £290,000. The Commission was concerned to note that the closure fee consisted of a portion of monies already held by CHSL in relation to the Family Trusts, but which was transferred to a bank account that did not appear on CHSL’s audited financial statements. This bank account was referred to at times as “the slush fund” by Mr Shaw. This should have put Mr McNaught on alert and caused him to challenge Mr Shaw.

The Commission identified that the level of fees charged in relation to the closure of the Family Trusts was based on a calculation of 3 years’ future fees, with no satisfactory explanation as to why they were calculated in this way. In addition, despite the fees being taken in August 2012, it was not until December 2012 that the deeds of appointment, indemnity and termination were fully executed. The Firm thus acted without prudence or integrity.

In explaining to the clients the level of fees charged, Mr Shaw and a fellow director referred in correspondence to a requirement of the Commission for insurance cover to be in place. This false representation was used to justify the high level of fees charged by CHSL. Mr Shaw claimed this was a negotiating tactic. The Commission found his conduct in making false and misleading references to insurance costs in relation to excessive fees charged for the closure of these trusts falls far short of what is required to be considered a fit and proper person.

Client B, another Trust which was also under the management of Mr Shaw was prematurely charged a closure fee in a way that was neither fair nor transparent. During the restructuring process, CHSL did not manage the trust assets professionally and responsibly as there was no documentary evidence to show that Client B was informed that a £60,000 closure fee had been taken, nor that an invoice had been issued. The closure fee was once again placed in the account that did not appear on the CHSL audited financial statements, and was referred to by Mr Shaw as the “slush fund”. This behaviour demonstrates a lack of integrity contributing to the failure of the Firm to meet the minimum criteria for licensing.

As detailed in the TSP Code, TSPs should provide promptly to clients information to which they are entitled about a trust, which would include the taking of closure fees.

Failure to ensure that signed client agreements were held

Principle 5 of the CSP Code states that a written record of the terms of the business relationship must be kept, including evidence of the client’s agreement to those terms.

Client A (a high-risk client) had been a client of CHSL since 1998, however Mr Shaw continually failed to ensure that a signed client agreement was obtained. Mr Shaw was directly aware of this failing having signed off periodic reviews for the client where the absence of a signed client agreement was raised.

Client C was taken on by CHSL in 2012 and initially Mr McNaught and latterly Mr Shaw (who had direct knowledge of this client) failed to ensure that a signed client agreement was obtained.  A completed client agreement obtained at the outset would have confirmed the ownership position and could have prevented the ownership issues that subsequently arose.

Failure by Mr Shaw and Mr McNaught to treat CHSL as a separate legal entity from its shareholders.

Principle 3 of the Directors Code states that directors must treat the company as a separate legal entity from its shareholders, directors and others and avoid conflicts of interest with it or deal with them in accordance with the company’s articles of association.

In relation to the closing fees paid by the Family Trusts, the Commission was concerned by the manner in which the final closing fees were accounted for, and ultimately distributed. The Commission noted that 11.5% was recorded as income by CHSL and properly accounted for, however a total of 88.5% was distributed directly to Mr Shaw, without being recorded as CHSL income or accounted for accordingly.

A series of payments were made from the “slush fund” to Mr Shaw, or for his benefit in May 2013, December 2013 and a final payment in April 2014. On each occasion a fellow director countersigned the bank instructions with Mr Shaw. Whilst this unusual treatment of fees was taking place, Mr McNaught was a director and signed the CHSL audited accounts during the relevant periods.

The payment in April 2014 would have represented approximately 26% of CHSL’s annual turnover yet Mr McNaught, a 24% controller in CHSL at this point, failed to query these payments with Mr Shaw.

Mr Shaw and Mr McNaught were unable to evidence why the fees were split between Mr Shaw and CHSL in the way that they were. As a result, Mr Shaw & Mr McNaught failed to treat CHSL as a separate legal entity from its shareholders and demonstrated a lack of integrity, competence and knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be undertaken.

Failure to adequately conduct ongoing and effective monitoring of an existing relationship and a failure to conduct business with integrity.

Client E was established with a view to acquiring specialised investment properties for a small group of investors. Later in the client lifecycle Client E changed from a limited company to a protected cell company.

When this client was first introduced to Mr Robilliard, the proposed beneficial owner had several credible adverse media alerts. These included convictions in absentia for fraud and being sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Shortly thereafter, the same client structure was submitted to Mr Robilliard, this time with a different beneficial owner and CHSL on-boarded the client.

The risk rating assigned to the client was standard. Within months of the client relationship being established it became apparent that the original proposed beneficial owner was connected to the structure. A fee relating to the company was paid to CHSL by him. He was clearly an associate of the individual purported to be the beneficial owner and was involved in his business. The association between the two individuals was further evidenced later in the relationship when Mr Robilliard was asked to assist with documentary matters that would enable a bank account for a connected entity to be opened, whereby both individuals would be signatories. Mr Robilliard either failed to recognise these connections, chose to ignore them or failed to adequately address them. This is a failure to comply with Regulation 3 of the Regulations which provides that risk assessments must be changed where required.

In addition to the concerns with ownership, the Commission noted that the introducer of this business had no formal arrangement with CHSL to act in such a capacity. Subsequent to the introduction it was apparent that Mr Robilliard allowed this individual to be the main point of contact for the majority of matters, despite the fact that he was not a shareholder, director or holder of any other official role with Client E or any of the entities connected to Client E. In addition, Mr Robilliard did not hold any authority from the beneficial owner to allow this individual to deal with Mr Robilliard, and a number of other professionals related to Client E.

One of the connected entities to Client E was a Guernsey registered company, originally held out as the sponsor to Client E and detailed as a boutique alternative investment firm based in the heart of Central London. The registered address was a residential one in Guernsey and the sole director and resident agent was the brother of the introducer of Client E to CHSL. The entity had been incorporated by CHSL (Mr McNaught) approximately a year before Client E was taken on.

During the lifecycle of Client E, this entity’s role and activity changed from that outlined above to that of a potential substantial investor in Client E, a majority shareholder in the investment manager and the holder of a bank account where the originally proposed and actual beneficial owners of Client E would have been signatories. Again, Mr Robilliard failed to identify the shifting nature of integral parts of Client E and caused CHSL to breach Regulation 11 in regard to performing ongoing and effective monitoring of its business relationships; as well as Regulation 3 in relation to the risk assessment. Given the information held by the Firm, Mr Robilliard should have taken steps to fully understand and document the ownership and ongoing role of the entity in relation to Client E but failed to do so. This complex structure required careful ongoing and effective review and there is no evidence that this was carried out. The on-boarding and subsequent management of Client E was chaotic, reactionary and lacking competence, experience and soundness of judgement.

The Commission concluded that Mr Robilliard either knowingly or recklessly failed to investigate the true extent of the involvement of key individuals in these structures. He should have realised that there was a real risk of reputational damage to the Bailiwick given the proven link between them and the possible cloaking of the true beneficial owner and his substitution. Overall, the actions of Mr Robilliard demonstrate a lack of integrity and soundness of judgement and a lack of competence in his failure to recognise the obvious red flags in relation to this client. His failure to understand the structure he was managing demonstrates a lack of knowledge of his legal and professional obligations.

Aggravating Factors

The contraventions and non-fulfilments of Mr Shaw appear deliberate. Mr Shaw initiated the majority of actions in relation to Client C, Client B and the Family Trusts and the latter two apparently for his own gain.

With regard to the Family Trusts, that conduct is aggravated by the reference to an insurance requirement of the Commission to justify and explain the level of fees being charged to the client.

In assessing Mr Robilliard’s conduct, the Commission has considered it an aggravating factor that in respect of Client D, Mr Robilliard suggested the change in ownership of a company so that the real owners cannot be identified by counterparties in property transactions. A similar course of action was followed in respect of Client E.  

Mitigating Factors

The individuals detailed in this statement no longer have a role in the Firm, and the new owners have remediated the book of business, and surrendered the licence of the Firm.

Chamberlain Heritage Services Limited, Mrs Deborah Anne Ellis

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Business and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”)

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”)

The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Business Law”)

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the “Banking Law”) (together “the Regulatory Laws”)

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”); 

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the “Handbook”)

The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business (the “Principles”)

The Code of Practice – Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance – (the “Code of Corporate Governance”)

The Code of Practice – Corporate Service Providers (the “CSP Code”)

The Code of Practice – Trust Service Providers (the “TSP Code”)

The Code of Practice – Company Directors (the “Directors Code”)

 

Chamberlain Heritage Services Limited (“CHSL”)

Deborah Anne Ellis (“Mrs Ellis”)

 

On 20 August 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

  1. To impose a financial penalty of £14,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mrs Ellis;
  2. To make orders under section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law, Section 34E of the POI Law, Section 28A of the Insurance Business Law, Section 18A of the IMII Law and section 17A of the Banking Law, prohibiting Mrs Ellis from holding the position of director, controller, partner or manager for a period of 1 year and 5 months.
  3. To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mrs Ellis for a period of 1 year and 5 months.
  4. To issue a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The publication of this public statement was delayed in order to allow other parties to complete the statutory appeal process.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mrs Ellis failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing under Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law (and also was not a fit and proper person in terms of Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Supervision Law, and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law, which set out the minimum criteria under these Laws).

Background

Mrs Ellis was a Director of CHSL (an entity licensed to conduct regulated activity under the Fiduciaries  Law) from 1 April 2011 to 18 March 2018.  She was also the Compliance Officer and Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer between 21 October 2014 to 19 March 2018.

The primary activities of CHSL were the management and administration of trusts and companies, provision of individual or corporate directors, provision of individual or corporate secretaries, registered office services and nominee services.

Findings

During the period between April 2011 to March 2018:

Mrs Ellis failed to ensure that adequate enhanced due diligence was obtained for a high risk client, and failed to ensure that this client was subject to ongoing and effective monitoring.

Regulation 5 of the Regulations states that where a financial services business is required to carry out customer due diligence, it must also carry out enhanced due diligence in relation to a business relationship or occasional transaction which has been assessed as a high-risk relationship.

Regulation 11 of the Regulations stipulates that a finance services business shall perform ongoing and effective monitoring of any existing business relationships.

For example, Client A was a high-risk client and had been with CHSL since 1998. The purpose of the client’s company was to receive royalty payments from retail products sold in a high-risk country.

The Commission noted during its investigation that Mrs Ellis had personally signed off periodic reviews for this client in 2015, 2016 and 2017; however, the following issues were identified by the Commission:

  • The source of wealth and source of funds information was inadequate, consisting of documents that were poorly translated, and in some cases undated, expired and unsigned;
  • There was no documentary evidence to support the provenance of incoming funds;
  • One periodic review detailed that the fees for the client fell outside the standard parameters of the Firm, and could be considered abnormal for a client with virtually no activities; and
  • The sole point of contact for the client was via a person purportedly acting on behalf of the beneficial owners of the client structure.  No due diligence was ever conducted on this person. 

Mrs Ellis did not always act in the best interests of beneficiaries.

Principle 4 of the TSP Code states that Trust Service Providers (“TSPs”) should treat the interests of beneficiaries as paramount, subject to their legal obligations to other persons or bodies. In particular, TSPs should agree a clear fee structure in advance of taking an appointment and charge fees in accordance with that, and in a fair and transparent manner.

As part of its investigation the Commission looked at five Trust structures relating to one family (“the Family Trusts”). In 2012, the family requested that the Family Trusts be closed down.

The Commission noted during its investigation that Mrs Ellis worked extensively on the closure of the Family Trusts including the taking of closure fees amounting to approximately £287,000. The Commission was concerned to note that the closure fee consisted of a portion of monies already held by CHSL in relation to the Family Trusts, but which was transferred to a bank account that did not appear on CHSL’s audited financial statements.  This bank account was referred to at times as “the slush fund” by a fellow director.

The Commission was concerned when it identified that the level of fees charged in relation to the closure of the Family Trusts was based on a calculation of 3 years’ future fees, with no satisfactory explanation as to why they were calculated in this way.

In relation to the explanation given to the family regarding the level of fees charged, the Commission noted that Mrs Ellis referred in correspondence to the prior correspondence of a fellow director's, that contained a false reference to the Commission’s requirement for insurance cover to be in place, as justification for the level of fees charged.  Mrs Ellis claimed that she did not recall any specific insurance requirement in respect of the Family Trust assets, and that she had made this reference to her fellow director's prior correspondence on the instructions given to her by the director. The Commission was concerned at the lack of diligence, challenge and soundness of judgement demonstrated by Mrs Ellis in acting on this instruction.

In 2017 Mrs Ellis was involved with another trust client, Client B, where a £60,000 closing fee was taken. There was no documentary evidence to show that Client B was informed that the fee had been taken, nor that an invoice had been issued.

As detailed in the TSP Code, TSPs should provide promptly to clients information to which they are entitled about a trust, which would include the taking of closure fees.

Mrs Ellis failed to ensure that signed client agreements were held for all clients.

Principle 5 of the CSP Code states that a written record of the terms of the business relationship must be kept, including evidence of the client’s agreement to those terms.

For example, Client A (high risk client) had been with CHSL since 1998, however Mrs Ellis continually failed to ensure that a signed client agreement was obtained.  Mrs Ellis was directly aware of this failing having signed off periodic reviews for the client where the absence of a signed client agreement was raised. The lack of a signed agreement for a high risk client that had been with CHSL for some 19 years further demonstrated a lack of competence, and knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be undertaken by Mrs Ellis.

A separate client, Client C was taken on by CHSL in 2012, and again Mrs Ellis (who had direct knowledge of this client) failed to ensure that a signed client agreement was obtained. A completed client agreement obtained at the outset would have confirmed the ownership position and could have prevented the ownership issues that subsequently arose.

Mrs Ellis failed to treat CHSL as a separate legal entity from its shareholders.

Principle 3 of the Directors Code states that directors must treat the company as a separate legal entity from its shareholders, directors and others and avoid conflicts of interest with it or deal with them in accordance with the company’s articles of association.

In relation to the activity already detailed regarding the Family Trusts, the Commission was concerned by the manner in which the final closing fees were accounted for, and ultimately distributed.  The Commission noted that 11.5% was recorded as income by CHSL and properly accounted for, however a total of 88.5% was distributed directly to the majority shareholder of CHSL, without being recorded as CHSL income or accounted for accordingly.

A series of payments were made to the majority shareholder, or for their benefit in May 2013, December 2013 and a final payment in April 2014. On each occasion Mrs Ellis countersigned the bank instructions with the majority shareholder.

The payment in April 2014 would have represented approximately 26% of CHSL’s annual turnover and the Commission was concerned at Mrs Ellis’s lack of challenge to the majority shareholder in relation to these payments.

Mrs Ellis was unable to evidence why the fees were split between the majority shareholder and CHSL in the way that they were. As a result Mrs Ellis failed to treat CHSL as a separate legal entity from its shareholders and demonstrated a lack of competence and knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be undertaken.

The contraventions and non-fulfilments of Mrs Ellis detailed above are not alleged to be deliberate or malicious.

Aggravating Factors

The contraventions and non-fulfilments of Mrs Ellis were considered serious as they have had a detrimental effect on certain clients of CHSL. With regard to the Family Trusts, they have significantly overpaid for simple closures of trusts and the distribution of the underlying assets. The Commission was concerned by Mrs Ellis’s failure to raise adequate challenge to the decision to falsely portray these fees as in any way connected to the requirements of the Commission.

The distribution of these fees to an account referred to as a “slush fund” by a fellow director, demonstrates a lack of judgement on the part of Mrs Ellis; and has undoubtedly damaged the reputation of the Bailiwick as an international finance centre.

Mitigating Factors

Mrs Ellis co-operated with the Commission and agreed to settle an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty and prohibitions.

Mr Trevor James Kelham and Ms Sarah Jayne Sarre

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”);

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”).

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”).

The Principles of the Code of Corporate Governance (the “Code of Corporate Governance”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”) The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IB Law”)

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”); and

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (together “the Regulatory Laws”)

 

Mr Trevor James Kelham (“Mr Kelham”)

Ms Sarah Jayne Sarre (“Ms Sarre”)

 

On 25 April 2023, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

  1. To prohibit Mr Kelham under each of the Regulatory Laws from holding the position of director, controller, partner, manager and financial adviser under any of the Regulatory Laws for a period of 4 years;
  2. In relation to Mr Kelham, to disapply Section 3(1)(g) exemption under the Fiduciaries Law for a period of 4 years;
  3. To impose a financial penalty of £45,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Kelham;
  4. To impose a financial penalty of £13,500 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Ms Sarre; and
  5. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre failed to fulfil the relevant criteria of the minimum criteria for licensing under Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law.

BACKGROUND

Mr Kelham was Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of a licensed Guernsey company (“the Licensee”), from 7 September 2012 to 23 May 2017.

Ms Sarre was a director of the Licensee from 1 April 2015 to 11 February 2020. She was Head of Compliance from 1 September 2013 to 21 August 2016. She was the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (“MLRO”) from 1 September 2013 to 1 April 2015. She became the (Acting) MLRO again from 30 October 2015 to 17 August 2016.

The Licensee was the subsidiary company of a larger group of companies that operated globally (“Group”).

In December 2012, three months after Mr Kelham had joined the Licensee as Managing Director, a Group Internal Audit (the “GIA Report”) identified a number of serious issues, including that: (i) compliance at the Licensee required strengthening; and (ii) there were deficiencies in the Periodic Review Process at the Licensee.

The GIA Report also identified that there was extensive reliance on manual processes, with many key controls performed and evidenced manually in paper trust files, which made systematic risk based supervisory review difficult and hampered effective management oversight.

FINDINGS

Failure to remediate CDD deficiencies on an inwards transfer of business from another jurisdiction.

In December 2012, Mr Kelham was informed by Group of the decision to close in another jurisdiction and transfer a proportion of clients to the Licensee from another Group company, licensed in that other jurisdiction (“Company A”).

The transfers were implemented pursuant to a “grandfathering” procedure. Grandfathering was a term used to describe a process by which the client files would be transferred in accordance with paragraph 150 of the Handbook. Paragraph 150 of the Handbook provided that, where reliance is being placed on information and documentation obtained by the transferring company (Company A), there should be an assessment to establish whether Company A’s CDD policies, procedures and controls were satisfactory and compliant with Guernsey regulatory requirements.

Rule 151 of the Handbook provided that, where deficiencies in identification data were identified (either at the time of transfer or subsequently), the accepting financial services business must determine and implement a programme to remedy any such deficiencies.

In the event, between July and October 2013 some 35 clients were transferred from Company A to the Licensee, comprising 51 structures with total assets worth in excess of USD 590m.

Between January and April 2014, serious issues were identified with the client files transferred from Company A in relation to non-compliance with the Handbook and Regulations.

A remediation plan was proposed. Mr Kelham was responsible for ensuring it was conducted in an effective and timely manner. In the event, remediation took at least 2.5 years to complete with the result that breaches of the Regulations remained un-remediated during that period.

In particular, breaches remained un-remediated during this period in respect of: the requirement to identify and manage financial crime risks (Regulation 3), identify and verify the customer (Regulation 4), obtain enhanced due diligence (Regulation 5), effectively monitor transactions and other activity (Regulation 11) and ensure compliance with the Regulations and corporate responsibility (Regulation 15).

Failure to identify, manage and oversee the risks in relation to the outwards transfer and/or termination of USD 1.4 billion in client assets

From October 2015, the Licensee started to receive instructions either to transfer structures to another Group company, (“Company B”) in a different jurisdiction (“Country X”) or to terminate structures, in either case by 31 December 2015. The affected structures were associated with individuals understood to be tax residents of Country Y.

These requests involved c. USD 1.4 billion of assets held by trust and company structures administered by the Licensee (“AUM”) and represented approximately 40% of the Licensee’s overall business from Country Y at that time.

Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre were aware of Guernsey being an early adopter of the international tax reporting standard known as the Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”). The CRS was a standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, which required participating jurisdictions to obtain tax information from financial institutions, and automatically exchange that information with other participating jurisdictions on an annual basis. CRS was designed and intended to limit the opportunity for foreign clients to circumvent paying taxes in their home country.

In Guernsey, CRS was due to commence on 1 January 2016 and would have involved the automatic exchange of tax information between Guernsey and other jurisdictions. Country X was known at the time to not be adopting CRS, therefore tax information in relation to assets transferring to Country X would not be subject to the CRS.

In November and December 2015, Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre became aware of concerns being raised by Trust Officers of the Licensee relating to the rationale for these transfer/termination requests. These concerns included:

  • Suspicions that the large number of contemporaneous requests were due to the impending introduction of the CRS in Guernsey. Trust Officers were concerned that clients from Country Y wishing to transfer structures to Country X may have been attempting to avoid tax and/or to delay having to declare tax information in relation to assets and/or were intending to participate in a tax amnesty in Country Y; and
  • Suspicions that implausible rationales were being given for the requests which, coupled with the undue haste with which clients wanted structures to be transferred, suggested that the real rationale for the requests was likely to be something different.

Mr Kelham, as Managing Director and CEO, and Ms Sarre, as director and Acting MLRO, failed to ensure that the concerns raised by employees were properly investigated and addressed at the time, including at Board level, and prior to the transfers or terminations being implemented.

Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre failed to give proper consideration to the fact that, if the desire to avoid CRS was the or a motivating factor behind the requests, then it followed that there was a real risk that the AUM could well consist of funds tainted by tax evasion and/or other financial crime.

In November 2015, Mr Kelham personally addressed the Trust Officers in relation to their concerns about the requests for transfers or terminations. Mr Kelham gave the Trust Officers the impression that, whilst it may have been open to them to register Internal Suspicious Activity Reports (“iSARs”), they should not do so lightly and only if they were very sure of their facts because, if they were not, they could expose themselves to personal liability. As a result, the Trust Officers felt discouraged from making iSARs.

iSARs, which were made, were not investigated or acted upon promptly by Ms Sarre. Thus, an iSAR raised by a Trust Officer on the 16 November 2015, did not result in an external Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) until 15 April 2016. This was long after the legal ownership of the structures (and so the assets) had moved out of Guernsey.

Information also came to the attention of Ms Sarre in November 2015 which identified that some clients wishing to transfer to Company B had cited an intention to participate in a proposed tax amnesty programme in Country Y (“the Amnesty”).

The Amnesty was an opportunity for citizens of Country Y to participate in a tax amnesty proposed to take place in 2016. Those taking part would be exempt from criminal or financial charges in exchange for the relevant individuals repatriating their assets and paying a percentage of the assets’ value to Country Y’s Government.

By mid-November 2015, Ms Sarre had received information which identified that the Amnesty was another factor which could explain the requests to transfer or terminate trusts and corporate structures, namely with a view to repatriating assets to Country Y during 2016. This information should have served to reinforce concerns that clients, who were citizens of Company Y, wishing to transfer or terminate their relationships with the Licensee, might have been involved in tax evasion and that the assets themselves might represent the proceeds of other financial crime.

Ms Sarre failed to give proper consideration to the fact that an intention on the part of clients to participate in the Amnesty raised concerns that the AUM in question could be tainted by tax evasion. Although Ms Sarre drew the attention of the Board of the Licensee, at a Board meeting on 19 November 2015, to the fact that there was an imminent tax amnesty in Country Y, she failed to investigate or heed that an intent by clients to participate in the Amnesty was a further possible reason for the number of transfer and termination requests from clients from Country Y.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised and iSARs submitted by the Trust Officers, the transfers and terminations went ahead, following an ad-hoc process which did not comply with internal controls. Thus:

  • No tax advice confirmations or letters in support of the reasons for transfer were obtained prior to transfer; and
  • Some transfers still took place even though the relevant file had been marked with a “Refer to MLRO” code.

The Commission expects directors of a Licensee to ensure that the Licensee maintains a sound system of internal controls to safeguard assets and manage risks (paragraph 4.4 of the Code of Corporate Governance), whilst providing a suitable oversight of risk management within the Licensee (Principle 5 of the Code of Corporate Governance).

Mr Kelham, as Managing Director and CEO and Ms Sarre as director and Acting MLRO, failed to comply with paragraph 4.4 and Principle 5 of the Code of Corporate Governance, as they should have brought independent scrutiny and challenge to bear, ensuring that no transfers or terminations took place until they were confirmed as being regulatorily compliant.

By mid-January 2016, 36 client structures totaling USD 1.4 billion of AUM were either transferred to Company B, or the structure was terminated.

On 12 July 2016, Mr. Kelham signed tax confirmation letters in respect of the majority of the transfers, informing Company B that there were no outstanding tax issues in respect of the structures transferred. Mr Kelham signed these letters despite concerns being raised with him by an employee that insufficient data was held to enable such confirmations to be provided. At the time Mr Kelham signed these letters, fourteen of the structures were still subject to iSARs, seven of the structures were subject to external SARs; such structures would have had the “Refer to MLRO” code identified on their files.

In due course, all the structures identified in the letters signed by Mr Kelham had external SARs raised in relation to the suspicion of tax evasion. In one case, an external SAR was raised only 3 days after Mr Kelham provided the relevant tax confirmation letter.

Mr Kelham had no proper basis for signing the tax confirmation letters.

At least USD 265 million of the USD 1.4 billion of AUM that formed part of the transfers to Company B subsequently participated in the Amnesty, meaning that such funds (previously administered by the Licensee and transferred in the circumstances set out above) went on to be declared as part of an amnesty process for funds tainted by tax evasion.

Mr Kelham

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Kelham failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out at paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law, as he failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence, or with knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.

For example, Mr Kelham:

Failure to remediate the structures transferred to Licensee from Company A

  • Contrary to Rule 151 of the Handbook and in any event, failed to take appropriate and/or effective action to remedy the serious deficiencies in the due diligence records held in respect of the clients transferred from Company A, resulting in attempts to remediate that took at least 2.5 years to complete;
  • In failing to ensure that there was an effective and timely remediation programme in respect of the deficiencies within the client files transferred from Company A, caused the Licensee to continue to be in breach of the Regulations; in particular, the requirements to (i) identify and manage financial crime risks (Regulation 3), (ii) identify and verify the customer (Regulation 4), (iii) obtain enhanced due diligence (Regulation 5), (iv) effectively monitor transactions and other activity (Regulation 11) and (v) ensure compliance with the Regulations and corporate responsibility (Regulation 15);

Requests to transfer structures to Company B or to terminate

  • Failed to demonstrate soundness of judgement when faced with concerns indicating that a significant proportion of the AUM, the legal ownership of which was transferring to Company B might well have been tainted by tax evasion;
  • Failed to ensure that the concerns raised by employees were fully investigated and resolved before the transfer of legal ownership of the AUM out of the jurisdiction of Guernsey;
  • Failed to ensure that policies and procedures were followed in respect of the transfers; and
  • Failed to act with competence or with soundness of judgment, when signing letters confirming that the structures, which had transferred to another jurisdiction, were not subject to any outstanding tax issues, despite having been alerted to the fact that the assets in question might well be tainted by tax evasion; Mr Kelham should not have signed such letters.

Procedures and controls for the purpose of combatting financial crime

  • In the period January 2014 to July 2016, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the Licensee followed proper procedures and controls for the purpose of combatting financial crime.

In summary, Mr Kelham’s acts and omissions, as summarized above, exposed the Bailiwick of Guernsey to the risk of severe reputational damage as an international financial centre.

Ms Sarre

The Commission’s investigation identified that Ms Sarre failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out at paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law, as she failed to demonstrate that she acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence, or with knowledge and understanding of her legal and professional obligations.

For example, Ms Sarre:

  • Failed to demonstrate soundness of judgement when faced with concerns indicating that the AUM, the legal ownership of which was transferring to Company B might well have been tainted by tax evasion;
  • Failed, as Acting MLRO, to properly investigate iSARs reported to her; these should have been the subject of further investigation prior to the transfer of the structures to Company B or termination, and prior to the ownership of the structures (and so the assets) leaving the jurisdiction of Guernsey; there was a failure to appreciate and/or investigate that, if CRS and/or the Amnesty was a motivating factor for the requests to transfer or terminate, then the assets in question could consist of funds tainted by tax evasion;
  • Failed to ensure that the Licensee maintained an effective iSAR and external SAR procedure;
  • Failed to ensure that policies and procedures were followed in respect of the transfers; only once the requests had been acted on and legal ownership of USD 1.4 billion of AUM had left Guernsey’s jurisdiction (of which USD 265 million was to participate in the Amnesty), were meaningful investigations undertaken, which in turn resulted in large numbers of both iSARs and external SARs being made only after ownership of the assets had left the jurisdiction; and
  • In the period from November 2015 to July 2016, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the Licensee followed proper procedures and controls for the purpose of combatting financial crime.

In summary, Ms Sarre’s acts and omissions, in relation to the transfers to Company B and the terminations, exposed the Bailiwick of Guernsey to the risk of severe reputational damage as an international financial centre.

Aggravating factors

In respect of the delay in the remediation of the inadequate CDD on incoming transfers to the Licensee from Company A, the result was that during such period of delay, for which Mr Kelham was responsible, the position was unknown as to whether c. USD 590 million of AUM might involve money laundering, terrorist financing or other financial crime.

In respect of the transfers from the Licensee to Company B and the terminations, Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre allowed the ownership of client structures involving c. USD 1.4 billion of AUM (including at least USD 265 million of which then participated in the Amnesty) to leave the jurisdiction of Guernsey without proper and effective procedures and controls.

Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre gave insufficient regard to whether these funds involved tax evasion or were the proceeds of other financial crime.

These contraventions by Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre have exposed the Licensee and the Bailiwick of Guernsey to the risk of severe reputational damage as an international financial centre.

Mitigating factor

Both Mr Kelham and Ms Sarre have co-operated with the Commission throughout the investigation.

Crescendo Advisors International Limited, Mr Hamish Jebb Hamilton Few

The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Enforcement Powers Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 and the Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (collectively “the POI Law”)[i]

Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 (“the Regulations”)[ii]

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”)

The Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules 2016 (the “COB Rules”)

The Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance (“the Code of Corporate Governance”)

The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business

 

Crescendo Advisors International Limited (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”) Mr Hamish Jebb Hamilton Few (“Mr Few”)

 

The Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided that from 30 December 2022 it would take the following actions:

  • To impose a financial penalty of £203,000 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on the Licensee;
  • To impose a financial penalty of £33,810 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Mr Few;
  • To make an order under section 33(1) of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Few from holding the position of Controller, Director, Money Laundering Reporting Officer and Money Laundering Compliance Officer for a period of 3 years and 4 months;
  • Pursuant to section 32(3) of the Enforcement Powers Law, to disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Business and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 in respect of Mr Few for a period of 3 years and 4 months; and
  • To make this public statement under section 38 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee and Mr Few failed to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements and failed to meet the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 4 of the POI Law.

The findings in this case were serious and spanned a significant period, including after 13 November 2017 when The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2016 came into force, which increased the maximum level of financial penalties. 

BACKGROUND

The Licensee was incorporated in Guernsey in December 2008 and is licensed under the POI Law 2020 to carry on the restricted activities of Promotion, Dealing, Advising and Management, for both Category 1 Collective Investment Schemes and Category 2 General Securities and Derivatives.

The Firm provides discretionary investment management services to private clients and a small number of non-Guernsey collective investment schemes. Its clients comprise high net worth individuals from, or linked to, jurisdictions which are regarded as posing a higher risk of money laundering, terrorist financing and/or bribery and corruption.

The Licensee is part of the Crescendo group of companies, established and majority owned by Mr Giacomo Jacques Diwan. Mr Diwan is not resident in Guernsey.

From its incorporation in Guernsey in 2008 until July 2017, the Licensee was administered at different times by three locally based service providers who each provided Compliance Officers and Money Laundering Reporting Officers (“MLROs”) to the Firm. Since then, it has operated as a standalone licensee with a physical presence in Guernsey and has outsourced its compliance function.

Mr Few was involved in the administration and latterly the oversight of the day-to-day business of the Licensee throughout his employment with each of the three different administrators from 2008 until August 2015 when he left the Firm’s then administrator. He joined the Firm’s final administrator in July 2016 and was then appointed Senior Manager of the Firm in December 2016 and has been Managing Director since January 2018. He has also acted as the Firm’s MLRO since March 2019.

The Commission’s investigation into the Licensee commenced at the end of 2019 following an on-site visit to the Firm in August 2019 as part of the Commission’s Thematic Review of Source of Funds/Source of Wealth in the Private Wealth Management sector. This was the Licensee’s first visit by the Commission however, a Risk Mitigation Programme was put in place at the end of 2016 following identification by the Firm’s then administrators, of anti- money laundering/countering of financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) deficiencies in 90% of its client files (90% of which were classified as high risk). A remediation project undertaken by the Firm was reported to have been completed by November 2017.

FINDINGS

The Licensee had no direct contact with its clients. Its business model meant that it was reliant on information provided by relationship managers who were employed by another company in the group based in Switzerland.  Service level agreements purportedly governed the relationship in terms of the services provided by the group office, however, despite being aware from the outset of becoming a standalone business in 2017, that the outsourcing agreement between the Licensee and its group counterparty was inadequate, the Board of the Licensee failed to ensure it was amended in a timely manner.

The Licensee failed to demonstrate that effective mind and management was in Guernsey - simply operating a rubber-stamping process for investment decisions, despite being a licensed investment manager.

The Licensee’s own business risk assessment recognised that as its clients were predominantly connected to jurisdictions known to have a higher risk of financial crime, the assets under management in terms of source of wealth/funds had a higher financial crime risk associated with them.

The Commission’s investigation found that the Licensee had failed to effectively identify, monitor and manage some of the financial crime risks associated with its clients as required by the Regulations and the rules within the Handbook (“the Rules”). These issues, which were found to be systemic in the operation of the Firm, were reflected in the Firm’s failure to comply with regulatory requirements that arise at all stages of the client relationship, from on-boarding to day-to-day management and monitoring. The failings are particularly concerning due to the large proportion of high-risk clients.

In particular, the Commission found:

The Licensee failed to properly conduct relationship risk assessments, taking into account relevant high-risk factors and to regularly review relationship risk assessments

The Regulations and the Rules require that in order for a financial services business to consider the extent of its potential exposure to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing it must assess the risk of any proposed business relationship prior to the establishment of that relationship and regularly review such a risk assessment so as to keep it up to date.

There was no evidence of initial risk assessments on some of the files examined by the Commission. The files also evidence that the Licensee did not fully understand the nature of the business of its clients and was therefore unable to take into account all relevant information when conducting risk assessments and reviews.

Example 1

The Licensee’s business relationship with Ms A, a private wealth client from Country X, a high-risk country, began in September 2014. However, the first risk assessment for Ms A in the file provided to the Commission was carried out in March 2017.

Open-source information obtained by the Licensee in 2020 revealed that Ms A’s father was an ex-government leader of Country Y – a country known for the prevalence of bribery and corruption, particularly amongst government officials. It also reported that he had previously been wanted by Interpol for alleged illegal financial operations abroad and tax evasion (albeit the arrest warrant was withdrawn following a decision that his prosecution had been politically motivated). Ms A’s relationship to him meant that she was a Politically Exposed Person (“PEP”) and the risk that her source of wealth may have come from him – and that these may have been the proceeds of crime – should have been carefully considered by the Firm prior to taking on the business, as well as in the enhanced monitoring and high frequency reviews that are required for a PEP client. Had the Licensee collected sufficient data on Ms A (including her maiden name) as required by the Handbook it would have been able to discover this open- source information prior to 2020.

In addition, the intended source of funds for Ms A’s account came from companies which had issued bearer shares which are known to be used to conceal beneficial ownership.

Example 2

Company B, a private corporate client, was incorporated in 2012 in a high-risk country, Country Z; and it issued five bearer shares. The five recorded beneficial owners were individuals associated with the fishing industry. The first risk assessment on file was conducted in July 2015 and made no mention of the financial crime risk associated with bearer shares.

In 2020 the Licensee discovered adverse open-source information which potentially linked two of the original beneficial owners of Company B to the illegal fishing trade. This information had been available since 2011, prior to the take-on of Company B, however, these potential links to the laundering of the proceeds of crime had not been investigated by the Licensee, either at the outset of the relationship, during routine reviews, or when the ownership purportedly changed.

Example 3

Company C, also a private corporate client incorporated in high-risk Country Z, issued two bearer shares. Company C became a client of the Licensee in March 2011, the first risk assessment on file was dated October 2012 and made no mention of the financial crime risk associated with the issue of bearer shares.

In addition, one of the recorded beneficial owners was involved in an industry known to be linked to the production and trafficking of drugs. This risk was not considered by the Licensee in either the initial, or subsequent routine risk assessments.

Example 4

Company D is a private corporate client owned by Trust A set up for the benefit of the family of the settlor. Company D was taken on in January 2011, the first risk assessment on file was completed in October 2012 and did not acknowledge the risk of the settlor’s commercial interests in an industry frequently linked to financial crime.

In March 2015 the Licensee identified adverse information regarding fraud, trafficking and tax evasion linked to the settlor of Trust A and another of its private wealth clients. Following reassurance from a lawyer who provided the CDD documents of the settlor to the Licensee, the Firm made no further enquiries around the adverse media and it was not referred to in the subsequent risk assessment conducted in July 2015.

The Licensee failed to understand the ownership and control structure of a customer and identify PEPs

Regulation 4 of the Regulations and the related provisions of the Handbook relate to customer due diligence and require firms to identify the beneficial owner and underlying principal and take reasonable measures to verify such identity. In the case of a legal person or legal arrangement, firms must take measures to understand the ownership and control structure of the customer. Regulation 4 also requires a financial services business to determine whether the customer is a PEP.

Example 1

The Licensee failed to identify Ms A as a PEP until six years after the start of the business relationship.  The relationship manager in the group office was the ex-husband of Ms A, however, neither he, nor the group office shared this crucial information about the client with the Firm and the Firm’s lack of enhanced due diligence allowed it to go unnoticed until 2020.

Example 2

In September 2017, the relationship manager from the group office informed the Firm that the beneficial ownership of Company B had changed and one of the original five owners now owned 100% of the company. No evidence was provided to the Licensee to verify this change of ownership of this high-risk client.

Example 3

In September 2017, the Licensee received a share register for Company C which showed that the two bearer shares had been cancelled in December 2015 and shares issued to one of the original beneficial owners.  The Firm had been unaware of the change in ownership of Company C for almost two years.

Example 4

In 2015, the Licensee identified open-source material linking the settlor of Trust A to high- ranking officials in high-risk jurisdictions. However, the individual was not classified as a PEP until 2020, nine years after the business relationship with him was established.

Example 5

Mr E was introduced to the Licensee in June 2015 and was a business associate of the settlor of Trust A.  At the time of take-on, due to Mr E’s association with another of its clients, the Licensee was already aware of the adverse media surrounding Mr E, which identified him as a PEP due to his partial ownership of a company also owned by PEPs.  The adverse media also linked Mr E to individuals known to be involved in bribery and corruption. Despite having this information, the Licensee failed to recognise Mr E as a PEP until 2020, five years after the client was taken on.

The Licensee failed to carry out Enhanced Due Diligence (“EDD”)

Regulation 5 and the relevant provisions of the Handbook detail the EDD requirements required for high-risk customers and, in particular, the requirement to take reasonable measures to establish the source of any funds and of the wealth of the customer, beneficial owner and underlying principal.

The Licensee relied on relationship managers in the group office to provide it with letters summarising their basic knowledge of the clients’ source of funds and source of wealth. The Commission found little evidence of any corroboration of the claims made by the group office on file, or of any independent EDD being carried out by the Licensee on high-risk clients.

Example 1

Ms A’s ex-husband (who was a director of the Licensee at the time and a relationship manager of the group office) introduced her to the Firm and told them her source of wealth derived from the proceeds of their divorce. The Firm relied upon this basic information without obtaining any corroborating evidence.

In addition, her source of funds was anticipated to be two companies managed by the Firm of which she was the beneficial owner, however, when funds were received from third parties the Firm failed to investigate the rationale for the receipt of the funds and relied on the relationship manager’s uncorroborated explanation that the source of wealth was in fact the proceeds of a life insurance product that was originally taken out by her current husband for her benefit.

Example 2

The Licensee relied entirely on a letter from the relationship manager informing it that the source of wealth for the five individual beneficial owners behind Company B came from their background in the fishing industry. No corroborating evidence was obtained and no EDD was conducted by the Licensee despite this being a high risk client.

The Licensee knew very little about the business of Company B which was purportedly a trading company and had no corroborating evidence relating to the source of funds into the company. Over $8.7 million was received into Company B between May 2012 and October 2013 from third parties, some of which had no identifiable links to the fishing industry which Company B was purportedly trading in.

Example 3

Despite his interests in an industry linked to drug production and trafficking, no EDD was conducted by the Licensee on the beneficial owner of Company C and no attempts were made to corroborate the information provided by the relationship manger regarding his source of wealth.

Over $6 million was introduced into Company C from various accounts held by Company C in another jurisdiction which the Licensee had no oversight of. From information gathered in 2020, the Firm determined that funds had been received from another client of the group, as well as stock transferred from the personal asset holding vehicle of one of the group’s relationship managers.

Example 4

Due to the lack of visibility of account names, the source of funds into Company D’s account could not be identified. Over $200 million was received into Company D’s account over the course of the relationship yet the Licensee did not seek to conduct any EDD or verify the source of wealth until some seven years after taking on the business.

The Licensee failed to monitor transactions and activity

Regulation 11 details the requirements to perform ongoing and effective monitoring of existing business relationships, including scrutiny of any transactions or other activity. Regulation 5 also details that for high-risk clients there must be more frequent and more extensive monitoring.

The Licensee’s monitoring was ineffective and failed to consider third party payments being made to the client account (for example as seen in the files for Ms A and Company D referred to above) including where its clients were classified as high-risk and had numerous high-risk indicators and therefore, should have been subject to more extensive scrutiny.

The failure of the Licensee to identify adverse media, for example in the case of Company B, also demonstrated to the Commission that the Firm did not undertake effective monitoring.

The Licensee failed to ensure appropriate and effective AML/CFT policies, procedures and controls

The Regulations require a financial services business to ensure that its policies, procedures and controls on forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing are appropriate and effective, having regard to the assessed risk.

Whilst the Licensee identified that its clients were predominantly high-risk due to the jurisdictions they resided and undertook business in, the Board failed to establish and implement effective policies, procedures and controls to mitigate the risks.

Corporate governance failings

The Commission noted the model employed by the Firm, whereby investment advisory services, together with all client matters, are outsourced to the group office. However, there is a requirement for adequate oversight of the outsourced function and a requirement to demonstrate the ability to make prudent investment management decisions. The Guernsey licensee is required to hold adequate information in order to be able to make investment decisions on behalf of clients. Further, mind, management and control within the Bailiwick must be demonstrated to satisfy the minimum criteria for licensing under the POI Law.

The Licensee recorded very little information about the model portfolios presented to clients by relationship managers in the group office and how these reflected the client’s investment objectives.

The Licensee did not record the rationale as to the suitability of the investment recommendation for its clients and was unable to evidence compliance with the COB Rules and the Principles of Conduct of Finance Business relating to suitability and information about customers.

The Board represented to the Commission that access to client information, such as due diligence documentation and investment objectives, was available via the database system and that adequate processes were in place to ensure the suitability of the trade prior to any transactions being executed on behalf of clients. However, in addition to the failure to comply with the standards of due diligence required by the Bailiwick AML/CFT regulatory framework, the Firm was unable to demonstrate that it performed sufficient analysis of the buy or sell advice provided to it to ensure that it is advising and managing the assets and investments in a prudent way. The Board was unable to evidence that it challenged investment advisory instructions being made on its clients’ behalf.

The Firm failed to demonstrate that there was sufficient constructive discussion, understanding or deliberation over the investment management and advisory decisions it makes on behalf of its clients. Such discussions would be expected, on an ongoing basis, to include consideration of portfolio constitution, prospectus remit, investment performance and future expectations.

The Licensee established an Investment Committee in 2016, however this committee only met six times in four years and was not effective. The Licensee did not maintain records of discussions about its consideration of investment strategies or model portfolios, failed to obtain adequate or ongoing information on clients’ investment objectives and failed to execute an effective agreement with the group office regarding the outsourcing of certain services.

These factors led the Commission to conclude that the Board of the Licensee could not demonstrate its effectiveness in governing the Firm, acting in its best interests or observing the Principles of Finance Business. The investment management function was carried out by the group office and the licensed Guernsey entity simply acted on instructions received from there.

The Licensee failed to avoid, manage or minimise conflicts of interest

As demonstrated in the case of Ms A, the Licensee failed to comply with the requirements of the COB Rules and the Code of Corporate Governance in relation to dealing with conflicts of interest.

Ms A’s ex-husband managed her investments and not only was he a relationship manager at the group office, but a director of the Licensee at the time the business relationship was established. This presented a clear conflict of interest to the Firm who relied on information provided by him without independently verifying what it was told. In addition, the Licensee continued to act on instructions from him regarding her account after he had resigned as director and it had been discovered that he had supplied inconsistent information over the period of the client relationship.

The Firm failed to recognise and address the conflict of interest which arose between the underlying client and a director of the Licensee (who was also a relationship manager in the group office). This conflict was not properly documented or managed and he was permitted to make decisions on the client account and was relied upon for information, both at take on of the client and during reviews.

Mr Few

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Few failed to act with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence; or with the knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.

Mr Few, who was appointed to the Board of the Licensee in January 2018, clearly identified and highlighted to an incoming director prior to the latter’s appointment in March 2018, that the Licensee had very little knowledge of its clients’ investment objectives and he was obviously aware that the policies and controls in place at the time were not sufficient to meet the requirements in Guernsey.  An attempt to employ someone with appropriate investment experience in May 2018 still did not resolve this issue.

Mr Few had been involved with the administration of the Licensee until August 2015 and then from December 2016 he became a senior manager at the Firm and latterly, managing director. His knowledge of the business model of the Firm, coupled with his expected knowledge of the Guernsey legal and regulatory requirements ought to have placed him in a good position to bring the Firm into compliance when it became a standalone licensee. However, despite his acknowledgement of the deficiencies that existed, he failed to ensure the necessary improvements were implemented to ensure the Firm complied with its regulatory obligations. The absence of these necessary improvements contributed to the failure of the Firm to meet the MCL in Schedule 4 to the POI Law. In failing to implement these improvements Mr Few did not act in the best interests of the company and demonstrated his own lack of fitness and propriety to act as a director of a licensee.

Aggravating factors

The Licensee’s business was inherently high-risk with 90% of its clients rated high-risk. There was adverse media on a number of the Licensee’s clients, which signposted the significantly heightened risk of the Licensee handling the proceeds of crime.

The Licensee failed to ensure that it had adequate policies, procedures and controls in place, as required by regulation, resulting in the Licensee being vulnerable to being used to facilitate money laundering and terrorist financing and thereby jeopardizing the reputation of the Bailiwick as an international finance centre.

Failings were found to have occurred from the time of take-on of business relationships, including not completing risk assessments and failing to undertake sufficient EDD on high-risk business relationships and these were not remediated during periodic reviews.

The Commission relied on assurances from the Board of the Licensee, in relation to the completion of the remediation project in 2017, which were inaccurate.

The deficiencies in the Firm’s corporate governance strategy were brought to the attention of the Board by Mr Few in 2018 but these were not effectively addressed.

Mitigating factors

In 2017 the Firm appointed a local compliance consultant to undertake the remediation of all the identified deficiencies in its client files as required by the Commission’s Risk Mitigation Programme. Subsequently, the Licensee continued to outsource its compliance function to a local provider who at no time alerted the Board to any substantial deficiencies or potential regulatory breaches. The significant and continued failings identified in the Commission’s investigation were not brought to the attention of the Licensee by its outsourced compliance function. Notwithstanding, the Board of the Licensee acknowledges that it remains responsible, including for the review of its compliance as required by paragraph 15 of Schedule 3.

Following the on-site visit, the Licensee agreed to a second Risk Mitigation Programme, which has been completed.

At all times the Licensee and Mr Few co-operated fully with the Commission. The Licensee and Mr Few agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties and the duration of Mr Few’s prohibition.

End


[i] The POI Law was repealed by the Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the POI Law 2020”) on 1 November 2021.

[ii] The Regulations were repealed and replaced by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1999 (“Schedule 3”) on 31 March 2019.

Hansard Limited, Andrew Neil Parr, Alan Peter Northmore, Philip Clive Blows, David Samuel Lloyd, Lynn Giovinazzi

The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Enforcement Powers Law”)
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 (“the Regulations”)
The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”)

Hansard Limited, (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”)
Mr Andrew Neil Parr (“Mr Parr”)
Mr Alan Peter Northmore (“Mr Northmore”)
Mr Philip Clive Blows (“Mr Blows”)
Mr David Samuel Lloyd (“Mr Lloyd”)
Ms Lynn Giovinazzi (“Ms Giovinazzi”)
 (together “the Directors”)

On 20 December 2021 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

•    To impose a financial penalty of £140,000 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on the Licensee; 

•    To impose a financial penalty of £56,700 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Mr Parr;

•    To impose a financial penalty of £56,700 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Mr Northmore; 

•    To impose a financial penalty of £56,700 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Mr Blows; 

•    To impose a financial penalty of £44,100 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Mr Lloyd;

•    To impose a financial penalty of £44,100 under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Ms Giovinazzi; and

•    To make this public statement under section 38 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee and the Directors had failed to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements, and the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Lawi.

The findings in this case were serious and spanned a significant period, including after 13 November 2017 when The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2016 (“the FSC Amendment Law”) came into force, which increased the maximum level of financial penalties.  These are the first financial penalties imposed under the FSC Amendment Law, as a result, no direct comparisons can be made to previous cases with similar findings.

BACKGROUND

The Licensee was established in Guernsey in August 1988 and undertakes fiduciary activities under a full fiduciary licence. 

The Firm provides trust services, including formation and administration of trusts, advice on formation and administration of trusts and the provision of trustees. The Firm also provides company administration services, including company and/or corporate administration, company formation, provision of directors and secretaries, nominee services, registered office and registered agent services and administration of pension schemes.

Mr Parr has been a director of the Licensee since March 2006 and Managing Director since January 2015.  

Mr Northmore has been a director of the Licensee since January 2009.

Mr Blows has been a director of the Licensee since June 1992 and was the Managing Director until December 2014.  Mr Blows is also the Licensee’s largest ultimate beneficial owner having an interest in over 60% of the shares in the Licensee.

Mr Lloyd has been the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (“MLRO”) for the Licensee since April 2010 and a director since March 2013.

Ms Giovinazzi was the Compliance Officer for the Licensee between October 2010 and May 2018 and a director between January 2014 and May 2018.

The Licensee’s own business risk assessment noted that it had a high-risk appetite and that the Licensee provided services to clients in a wide range of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions which are regarded as posing a higher risk of money laundering, terrorist financing and/or bribery and corruption.  The business risk assessment also noted that the clients of the Licensee are involved in a wide range of activities, some of which pose an enhanced risk of money laundering, terrorist financing and/or bribery and corruption.  

The Commission’s investigation into the Licensee commenced in 2019 following an on-site visit to the License in May 2019.  This was its first visit by the Commission since 2008.  At the time of the on-site visit, the Licensee had rated 75% of its clients as high-risk.

FINDINGS

The Commission’s investigation found that the Licensee had failed to monitor and manage the financial crime risks associated with its customers as required by the Regulations and the rules within the Handbook (“the Rules”).  This was particularly concerning due to the Licensee’s stated high-risk appetite and the large proportion of high-risk clients.

In particular, the Commission found:

The Licensee failed to properly conduct and document relationship risk assessments prior to the establishment of a business relationship

The Regulations and the Rules require that in order for a financial services business to consider the extent of its potential exposure to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing it must assess the risk of any proposed business relationship prior to the establishment of that relationship and there must be clear, documented evidence as to the basis on which the assessment is made.

There was no evidence of initial risk assessments on some of the files examined by the Commission.  

Example 1

Trust 1 was established in 2010 by Mr A, a high net worth individual from Country X, a high-risk country, with a joint licensee of the Firm as trustee.  However, the first risk assessment for Trust 1 in the file provided to the Commission was dated over a year after the trust was settled.

During the course of the business relationship the Licensee identified that Mr A’s father was a minister in the Government of Country X and that Mr A’s father was reportedly corrupt and allegedly had links to Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. 

The Licensee failed to identify Mr A as a Politically Exposed Person (“PEP”) until two years after the settling of Trust 1.  This was despite identifying material on the internet, which was attached to the first risk assessment on the file, that clearly identified Mr A as the son of an Oligarch and Government minister. 

Mr A was already an existing client of the Firm at the point Ms Giovinazzi joined the Firm and Mr Lloyd was appointed MLRO and subsequently a director.

The Licensee failed to carry out sufficient Enhanced Due Diligence (“EDD”)

Regulation 5 and the relevant provisions of the Handbook detail the enhanced due diligence requirements required for high-risk customers and, in particular, the requirement to take reasonable measures to establish the source of any funds and of the wealth of the customer, beneficial owner and underlying principal.

Regulation 7 requires that customer due diligence and EDD be carried out before or during the course of establishing a business relationship.

Example 2

Prior to identifying Mr A as a PEP, notwithstanding that the relationship was rated as high risk due to the jurisdictional risk, the Licensee had limited information on file regarding Mr A’s source of wealth.  Following the identification of Mr A as a PEP, the Licensee wrote to Mr A’s representatives asking for their understanding of Mr A’s source of wealth.  By requesting Mr A’s representatives for their understanding of Mr A’s source of wealth two years after the establishment of Trust 1 and a year after it had rated Mr A as high risk, it is apparent that reasonable measures to establish source of wealth before or during the establishment of the business relationship had not been undertaken.

Example 3

Company 2 was incorporated in April 2017 and owned by Mrs B and Ms C, nationals of Country Y, a high-risk country, and residing in the United Kingdom.  Mrs B and Ms C are mother and daughter respectively.  Company 2 was set up to own two London properties.  The Licensee obtained information on Mrs B and Ms C’s source of wealth, which was corroborated by documents provided.  The Licensee was initially informed that the source of funds would be via finance being arranged by Mrs B and Ms C with further details to be provided.

Joint licensees of the Firm, as the corporate directors of Company 2, agreed in April 2017 to proceed with the purchase of the properties.  However, the Licensee had not yet fully established the source of funds for the purchase.  On enquiry with the lawyers acting in relation to the purchase, after the purchase had been completed, the Licensee discovered that the funding actually was provided by Mr D, the husband and father of Mrs B and Ms C respectively, allegedly via a gift from him funded by the sale of a property in Country Y.  The Licensee also identified internet articles linking Mr D to alleged fraud and corruption.

There were a large number of red flags in the information received by the Licensee in relation to Mr D’s source of funds that it failed to fully address, including:

•    The possibility that Mr D did not own the property in Country Y that was said to be his source of funds.  The sale agreement provided to the Licensee showed that Mr D was acting under a power of attorney for another national from Country Y in selling the property;

•    The funding provided to the lawyers acting for the purchase came from a number of different sources, not just direct from Mr D;

•    One source of funding was via a series of small payments to an alleged broker, which the Commission discovered had only existed for 18 months, and was based in a small town in Scotland; and

•    The complex and unverified sources of funds in relation to this client were potential indicators of some form of illicit activity.

The Licensee was therefore found to have failed to have taken reasonable measures to establish source of funds for this significant property purchase and this breach was compounded by the significant risk that the source of funds was the proceeds of Mr D’s alleged criminal conduct.

As a result of the red flags identified by the Firm it took appropriate steps and commenced the process necessary to terminate the relationship, with said process completed seven months prior to the Commission's visit.

The Licensee failed to monitor existing high-risk business relationships

Regulation 11 details the requirements to perform ongoing and effective monitoring of existing business relationships, including scrutiny of any transactions or other activity.  Regulation 5 also details that for high-risk clients there must be more frequent and more extensive monitoring.

The Licensee had in place a process of monitoring and oversight meetings, which were held quarterly for PEP clients and six-monthly for other high-risk clients.  These were in addition to regular full reviews and were part of the Licensee’s more frequent and more extensive monitoring for high-risk clients.  It was apparent from the client files reviewed by the Commission that this enhanced monitoring process was ineffective at times.  The monitoring and oversight meetings on occasion failed to record transactions that occurred during the period under review.

Example 4

In December 2016, the trustees of Trust 1 ratified a distribution of £9.5 million to Mr A that was actually made in October 2015.  It was explained to the Commission that a company owned by Trust 1 (which in turn owned a property) was sold and the proceeds distributed to Mr A by the lawyers acting in the sale rather than to Trust 1.  

This significant distribution and the sale of an underlying asset of Trust 1 is not mentioned in the monitoring and oversight meetings for the periods including October 2015 or December 2016.    

Example 5

Limited Partnership 3 was ultimately owned by Mr E and his wife who are nationals of Country X.  The Licensee had identified potentially adverse media regarding Mr E.

In February 2019, the General Partner agreed to Limited Partnership 3 redeeming its sole asset early.  There was no explanation in the minutes explaining the rationale for redeeming early.  

The monitoring and oversight meeting held in June 2019 covering the period from November 2018 summarised the activity of Limited Partnership 3 as investing in the asset that had been sold in February 2019.  There is no mention of the early redemption of Limited Partnership 3’s sole asset.  

Ms Giovinazzi had no involvement in this set of events following her retirement in May 2018.

The Licensee failed to adequately document the decision to exit a client

The Licensee’s written policy was for it to seek to terminate a client relationship where the client’s conduct gave reasonable cause to believe or suspect involvement in illegal activities.  The Licensee had cause to believe or suspect Mr A might be involved in illegal activities in 2013 and took appropriate steps but did not exit the relationship at that time.   The Licensee also advised the Commission that Mr A was a client.

The Licensee commissioned an enhanced CDD report on Mr A from a third party in 2017, the results of which were discussed by the Licensee’s board in August 2017.  The third-party report identified adverse media related to Mr A, including Mr A’s father’s alleged corruption and alleged links to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Mr A’s alleged involvement in an attempted contract murder and that Mr A’s wealth was likely to be linked to his father’s corruption.  

The Licensee explained to the Commission that this third-party report resulted in a decision to exit the business relationship with Mr A.  However, the minutes of the August 2017 board meeting only noted that the allegations in the third-party report were not new to the Licensee and were circumstantial.  The board minutes did not note a decision to exit the relationship.  

Whilst the number of entities administered by the Licensee for Mr A has reduced since August 2017, Mr A remains a client of the Licensee today, 8 years after first indicating that they had suspicion of Mr A’s involvement in illegal activities and over 4 years since the third-party report was considered by the board of the Licensee.  This is despite their written policy of terminating a client relationship where the Licensee suspects involvement in illegal activities.

The Licensee failed to ensure effective review of compliance with the Regulations and Handbook

Regulation 15 includes a requirement to establish and maintain an effective policy, for which responsibility must be taken by the board, for the review of its compliance with the requirements of the Regulations and such policy shall include provision as to the extent and frequency of such reviews. Rule 28 requires the board to ensure that the compliance review policy takes into account the size, nature and complexity of the business and includes a requirement for sample testing of the effectiveness and adequacy of the policy, procedures and controls.

At the time of the on-site visit, the new Compliance Officer had identified that the compliance monitoring programme required further development.  The new Compliance Officer had also reported to the Licensee’s board that the compliance monitoring programme needed to include sample testing.

The Licensee also explained that the previous Compliance Officer, Ms Giovinazzi, was historically part of the review and sign off process for client take on, file reviews, and other matters as well as the requirement for sign off by at least two other directors and these reviews were part of compliance monitoring.  However, it is apparent from the Commission’s findings from the client files reviewed that this process was not fully effective.

Mr Parr

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Parr failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement and diligence.  

For example, Mr Parr:

•    Failed to identify Mr A as a PEP when signing off the risk assessment for Trust 1;

•    Failed to ensure the decision to exit the relationship with Mr A was adequately documented; 

•    Failed to ensure the redemption of Limited Partnership 3’s sole asset was recorded in the relevant monitoring and oversight meeting; and

•    Did not ensure that the Licensee’s procedures and controls were appropriate and effective with regard to the Licensee’s high-risk appetite.

Mr Northmore

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Northmore failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement and diligence.

For example, Mr Northmore:

•    Failed to identify Mr A as a PEP when signing off the risk assessment for Trust 1;

•    Failed to query why it had taken over a year to ratify the £9.5 million distribution to Mr A and then failed to identify the distribution in the relevant Monitoring and Oversight meetings; and

•    Did not ensure that the Licensee’s procedures and controls were appropriate and effective with regard to the Licensee’s high-risk appetite.

Mr Blows

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Blows failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement and diligence.

For example, Mr Blows:

•    Signed the trust deed for Trust 1 and client agreement with Mr A in 2010. There is no evidence available that a risk assessment was completed prior to these documents being signed.; and

•    Did not ensure that the Licensee’s procedures and controls were appropriate and effective with regard to the Licensee’s high-risk appetite.

Mr Lloyd

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Lloyd failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement and diligence.

For example, Mr Lloyd:

•    Failed to query why it had taken over a year to ratify the £9.5 million distribution to Mr A and then failed to identify the distribution in the relevant Monitoring and Oversight meetings;

•    Failed to ensure the decision to exit the relationship with Mr A was adequately documented; and

•    Did not ensure that the Licensee’s procedures and controls were appropriate and effective with regard to the Licensee’s high-risk appetite.

Ms Giovinazzi

The Commission’s investigation identified that Ms Giovinazzi failed to demonstrate that she acted with competence, soundness of judgement and diligence.

For Example, Ms Giovinazzi:

•    Failed to identify Mr A as a PEP when signing off the risk assessment for Trust 1;

•    Did not ensure that the Licensee’s procedures and controls were appropriate and effective with regard to the Licensee’s high-risk appetite; and

•    Failed to ensure that the compliance monitoring programme was formally documented.

Aggravating factors 

The Licensee’s business was inherently high-risk with 75% of its clients rated high-risk.  There was adverse media on a number of the Licensee’s clients, which significantly heightened the risk of the Licensee handling the proceeds of crime.

The Licensee and the Directors’ failed to ensure that it had adequate policies, procedures and controls in place, as required by regulation, resulting in the Licensee being vulnerable to being used to facilitate money laundering and terrorist financing. 

Errors were made at the time of take-on of business relationships, including not completing risk assessments and failing to undertake sufficient EDD on high-risk business relationships.  

Mitigating factors

The Licensee identified some of the above issues prior to the on-site visit, in particular the lack of a formal compliance monitoring programme and errors in reviews being undertaken.  Steps were already being taken to remedy these issues prior to the on-site visit.

Following the on-site visit, the Licensee agreed to a risk mitigation plan, which it confirmed to the Commission had been completed.  This included appointing a third-party to review the effectiveness of its new procedures.  

The Licensee has appointed an independent non-executive director to its board in line with a requirement by the Commission to do so.  The Licensee has also agreed to establish an independent audit function, which will annually review the effectiveness of its anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism procedures.  

At all times the Licensee and the Directors co-operated fully with the Commission.  The Licensee and the Directors agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties.

End

i  The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 replaced The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 with effect from 1 November 2021

Standard Chartered Trust (Guernsey) Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (“the Financial Services Commission Law”); 
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”); 
The Disclosure (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2007 (the “Disclosure Law”). 
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”). 
The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”). 
The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business (the “Principles”). 
The Principles of the Code of Corporate Governance (the “Code of Corporate Governance”). 
Standard Chartered Trust (Guernsey) Limited (in liquidation), (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”).
 

On 4 June 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided: 

  • To impose a financial penalty of £140,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee; and 
  • To make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law. 

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing (“MCL”), under Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law, which set out the minimum criteria under this Law. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1991, the Licensee was established in Guernsey to undertake fiduciary activities under a full fiduciary licence. 

The Licensee’s primary business was the establishment and full administration of trust and managed company structures. These services included the establishment and management of corporate structures, the provision of registered office, directors, secretary, trustees and nominee shareholders and estate planning.

The majority of the Licensee’s clients were high-risk. 

The Licensee is a subsidiary of Standard Chartered PLC, which is the principal holding company for the Standard Chartered group of companies (“Group”). The other Group companies relevant to this public statement are Company A and Standard Chartered Trust (Singapore) Limited (“SCTS”)'. 

Between September and December 2012, Group Internal Audit carried out an assessment of the Licensee and highlighted a number of serious issues, inter alia: the compliance function required strengthening and there were deficiencies in the periodic review process. 

The Commission undertook a full risk assessment (“FRA”) of the Licensee between 13 and 16 May 2014. During this assessment, the Commission noted that the Licensee had already embarked on a risk mitigation plan, involving ten work-streams regarding areas of the business requiring remediation, one of which was to remediate a number of outstanding client risk assessments. 

The Commission followed up the May 2014 FRA with an engagement visit on 15 December 2015. The Commission noted at this time that whilst some progress had been made with the Licensee’s ten-point remediation plan, the Commission still had concerns that the Licensee had an over-reliance on manual processes, and that there was an ongoing financial crime risk associated with the ever increasing amount of action points arising from the ongoing client risk assessment project. 

The Commission imposed two risk mitigation plans on the Licensee in an effort to address the aforementioned issues. 

In July 2016, the Licensee informed the Commission that it was intending to close down over the next twelve months and all clients would be transferred either to SCTS, or to another Guernsey service provider. 

The Commission considered it necessary to impose, and SCTG agreed to, a number of licence conditions with the Licensee, in order to, amongst other things, ensure that financial crime risks would be appropriately managed during the wind down period. 

One of these licence conditions required the Licensee to appoint an external company to undertake an independent assessment of the Licensee’s client files. This company (the “Compliance Company”) was appointed in October 2016. 

The Commission undertook a further FRA between 12 and 20 December 2016, during which serious issues were identified with, inter alia, financial crime control failings regarding client files. The Commission’s Enforcement Division’s investigation into the Licensee commenced in May 2017.

On 19 May 2020, the Royal Court of Guernsey appointed joint Liquidators to the Licensee for the purpose of winding up the Firm. 

FINDINGS 

The block transfer of business to the Licensee from another jurisdiction without the appropriate skill or consideration 

In December 2012, a decision was made by Group to close Company A and transfer a proportion of Company A’s clients to the Licensee. 

The Commission expects a licensee to act appropriately when taking on a block of business from another jurisdiction, ensuring as far as possible that this new business will adhere to the high standards expected with regards to financial crime regulations. This guidance was detailed in the Handbook in force at the time, guidance note 150 refers. 

Whilst taking on new clients the Commission also expects that a licensee ensures: (i) it takes responsibility for the key policy of on-boarding clients; (ii) any group on-boarding policy is specific to the Firm’s legal and regulatory requirements; and (iii) it can identify and manage any potential risks these new clients may pose to the Firm by having a sound system of internal controls, as required by Guidance 2.3, 4.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Corporate Governance. 

Inadequate controls to manage risk 

The Licensee at the time of the transfer was under-resourced and had existing issues with its compliance function. 

The Licensee subsequently failed to act appropriately when taking on this block of business, most notably by: 

  • Bypassing its normal client take on procedure, and replacing it on the suggestion of Group with a new procedure, with the Licensee instructing employees to take on the business as quickly as possible, without the involvement of the firm’s Compliance function and forgoing any review of these high-risk clients until 12 months after they had been on-boarded. 

The Commission found that the Licensee failed to take responsibility for its on-boarding policy, without adequate consideration as to whether Group policy was suitable for Guernsey regulatory environment, breaching Guidance 2.3 and 4.2 of the Code of Corporate  Governance; 

  • Taking on the new clients without any adequate assessment that Company A’s client due diligence policies, procedures and controls were appropriate for it to rely on the due diligence records held by Company A, contrary to guidance in paragraph 150 of the Handbook. 
  • Suspending for several months an internal compliance monitoring programme, which was a key control process that could have identified regulatory breaches as soon as the clients were on-boarded, thus breaching Guidance 4.4 of the Code of  Corporate Governance. 

Regulatory breaches subsequently identified post transfer 

A licensee is expected, at all times, to comply with the requirements of the Regulations, including, ensuring it knows its customers and applies appropriate controls to monitor these relationships so any suspicious behaviour can be identified. 

Regulation 4 relates to Customer Due Diligence. This stipulates that a financial services business shall identify and verify its customers using identification data. 

Regulation 5 relates to Enhanced Due Diligence (“EDD”). This stipulates what EDD measures should be undertaken in respect of business relationships and occasional transactions, which are identified as high risk. These measures include carrying out more frequent and more extensive ongoing monitoring and taking steps to understand source of wealth and source of funds (“SOW/SOF”). 

Regulation 11 relates to ongoing effective monitoring. This stipulates that a financial service business shall perform ongoing effective monitoring of its business relationships; ensuring that the extent and frequency that it is carried out considers whether the relationship is high-risk. 

The licensee must also comply with Principle 5 of the Code of Corporate Governance that requires the Board of a licensee to provide suitable oversight of risk management.

Between January and March 2014, the Licensee began to identify serious issues with the clients transferred from Company A and put in place a remediation plan, which although it was envisaged would take 6 months to complete, in reality took over 3 years to complete. 

During the course of this remediation, the Licensee discovered potential breaches of the Regulations with over 97% of the client files received from Company A. 

The following examples are representative of some of the serious issues identified:

 Client File Example 1 - Failure to identify and corroborate source of wealth for a high-risk client 

The Licensee was unable to corroborate earnings of USD400k per annum for a high-risk client, (“Client A”), allegedly obtained from employment with a company involved in diamond processing, a high-risk activity. 

Client A (who was the Settlor of the trust) was unwilling to disclose the ultimate source of assets within the structure, resulting in the Licensee’s realisation in 2018 (some 5 years after on-boarding the client) that the assets may have been, derived from the proceeds of crime. 

The Licensee also concluded that Client A may have been acting as a nominee for another party and may not have been the true beneficial owner of the assets held within the structure. 

The Commission found the Licensee to have breached Regulations 4, 5 and 11. 

Client File Example 2 - Ineffective controls to manage Politically Exposed Person (“PEP”) risks 

A high-risk client, (“Client B”), who was the brother of a high-risk country’s current President and a son of its former President was identified to the Licensee as a PEP in August 2013, but failed to be included in the Licensee’s PEP Register until August 2015, some 2 years after being notified. 

The failure to maintain the PEP Register, an internal control to manage risk and provide oversight of risk management of high-risk clients, whilst also ensuring that its PEP relationships were kept under continuous effective senior management review, was a breach of Guidance 4.4 and Principle 5 of the Code of Corporate Governance and Regulation 5. 

The transfer and/or termination of USD 1.4 billion in client assets - the risks this posed to the Licensee and the Bailiwick 

Between late October 2015 and early December 2015, the Licensee suddenly started to receive instructions from clients to transfer to SCTS or terminate a total of 53 client structures. 

These requests amounted to USD 1.4 billion of assets under the Licensee’s management and predominantly originated from its clients resident in one country, Indonesia, and represented approximately 40% of the Firm’s overall business from Indonesia at that time. 

The Commission notes that the Licensee would eventually raise concerns that every transfer/termination represented the real risk of being linked to potential tax evasion and over USD 265 million of the USD 1.4 billion transferred/terminated, would subsequently be identified as participating in a tax amnesty in Indonesia. 

The Commission expects that a licensee should ensure that significant events affecting a clients’ whose assets it controls, such as a tax amnesty, are: (i) fully understood; (ii) managed with the utmost prudence and professional skill; and (iii) mitigated as far as possible and would not bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre. The Commission found that none of these expectations were met and the Licensee therefore failed to meet the requirements of the MCL. 

Failure to adequately address initial red flags 

During late October 2015, prior to the transfers/terminations, the Licensee became aware of numerous red flags being raised by its employees surrounding the rationale for the transfer/termination requests. These included: 

  • Employee suspicions that the requests were being driven by the impending introduction of an international tax reporting standard, designed to limit the opportunity for foreign clients to circumvent paying taxes in their home country. This standard was due to be introduced in the Bailiwick ahead of being introduced in SCTS’s jurisdiction. In simple terms, employees feared that clients from Indonesia wishing to transfer to SCTS may have been attempting to avoid tax, or at least delay having to declare their assets; and 
  • Employee suspicions that due to the fact that some rationales for transfer/terminations were being given which were undoubtedly implausible, (in some cases there was no rationale whatsoever), coupled with the undue haste with which clients wanted to transfer, meant that the real reason for transfer/terminations was for some other reason which the client did not want to declare. 

Whilst these concerns were discussed and considered by the Licensee, this did not lead to identifying any underlying motive for the requests, the development of an effective plan to mitigate these potential serious risks, or any slowing in the Licensee’s intention to transfer these clients as quickly as possible. 

The Commission was extremely concerned that the Licensee failed to adequately consider whether its clients’ had potentially evaded taxes in Indonesia and therefore the funds it controlled represented the proceeds of crime. 

The Commission found that the Licensee did not meet the requirements of the MCL, by showing a serious lack of prudence and professional skill when considering the financial crime concerns raised by its employees. 

Inadequate controls to manage the risk of transferring clients whose rationale for transfer were unclear 

The Commission expects that when problems arise with clients, in particular, where there is a suspicion of potential wrongdoing on the part of the client, a licensee will deal with the problem in an effective and expeditious manner, employing appropriate methods, including disclosing any suspicious activity, and not simply pass any problems on to another jurisdiction. Failing to deal with serious client issues, exposes the Bailiwick to the risk of reputational damage. 

However, despite the numerous red flags already raised regarding the transfer of clients to SCTS, the Licensee then engaged in an unbalanced process to expedite the transfers to SCTS. 

The Commission found that this unbalanced process demonstrated that the Licensee failed to maintain effective internal control to manage the risk of transferring the clients to SCTS and therefore breached Guidance 4.4 of the Code of Corporate Governance. 

Failure to corroborate clients’ SOW/SOF to the value of USD 1.1 billion 

Whilst the Commission’s investigation into the Licensee regarding the transfer of business from Company A to the Licensee, and from the Licensee to SCTS, uncovered specific failings; the examination by the Licensee and the Compliance Company of the whole client base, identified further systemic failings. 

The Commission expects a licensee to establish and understand the SOW/SOF of its high risk clients to satisfy itself that the funds did not originate from criminal activity. As part of its remediation of its whole client base, the Licensee and the Compliance Company identified that the SOW/SOF for USD 1.1 billion of assets under the Licensee’s management, was not corroborated to a satisfactory standard reflective of the risks within these relationships. 

Client Example 1 

A high-risk client (“Client C”) was a prominent business owner and Politically Exposed Person with an estimated wealth of over USD 270 million. 

Client C had been a client since 2006. However, despite having knowledge in 2014 identifying eleven links to adverse news on the client in relation to, amongst other things, fraud, money laundering and alleged corruption, the Licensee decided in 2015 to retain the business. 

Between February and May 2019 there were numerous emails concerning adverse media relating to a natural resources fraud involving the client. 

On 12 December 2019, the Firm concluded that the client may have benefitted from criminal conduct and accepted it could not corroborate Client C’s source of wealth. 

Client Example 2 

A high-risk client, (“Client D”) was involved in the merchandising of diamonds and jewelry, and had a reported wealth of over USD 230 million. The Licensee was unable to corroborate, amongst other things: 

  • Client D’s claim that he drew a salary of USD 500k per annum; and 
  • Client D’s reported wealth. 

In October 2018, the Firm concluded that all efforts to corroborate SOW had been exhausted due to a refusal by Client D to provide any further corroborating documentation. 

Client Example 3 

A high-risk client (“Client E”), who had PEP connections, was a client of the Licensee since 2011 and had settled over USD 690 million into a trust established by the Licensee. 

In 2018, the Licensee concluded that commercial activities within the trust structure were inconsistent with the rationale provided at the time of its establishment; this included a payment of over USD 50 million made from the trust to a holding company based in a different jurisdiction, which was owned by Client E. 

Client Example 4 

A high-risk client (“Client F”) was a client of the Licensee since 2011, with an estimated wealth of over USD 16 million. 

Between 2012 and 2015, Client F settled over USD 4 million into a trust established by the Licensee. 

Between 2012 and 2017 over USD 2 million was distributed from this trust to its beneficiaries, which included Client F. 

In October 2018, the Licensee accepted that the financial documentation received by the Licensee showed that Client F was never able to accumulate sufficient income over the years to settle over USD 4 million into the trust and concluded Client F’s source of wealth could not be corroborated. 

The Licensee was found to have breached Regulations 5 and 11 as it was unable to satisfactorily ensure it knew the origins of USD 1.1 billion of assets that it managed. 

Failure to keep adequate records 

Regulation 14 stipulates that a financial service business must keep a transaction document and any due diligence information. 

Principles 2 and 9 of the Principles, stipulate that a licensee should act with skill and diligence towards its customers and should organise and control its internal affairs in a responsible manner, keeping proper records. 

The Licensee was found to have breached Regulation 14 and Principles 2 and 9 as it failed to: 

  • Implement in a timely manner a software solution to remedy the Licensee’s inability to effectively maintain a complete contemporary record of millions of USD’s worth of transactions; 
  • Automatically archive the emails of all employees prior to August 2016; and 
  • Have a procedure in place to archive messages sent through a real-time communications system. 

Failure to identify suspicious activity 

A licensee must, as required by Regulation 12(f), ensure it establishes and maintains such other appropriate and effective procedures and controls as are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements to make disclosures. 

Between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017, a very significant increase in the number of disclosures were made compared to the period between 1 July 2015 to June 2016. As these disclosures involved predominantly clients who had been with the Licensee prior to 2015, the Commission concludes that the Licensee’s policies and procedures before July 2016 for identifying suspicious activity were inadequate, thus breaching Regulation 12(f). 

Failure to ensure that appropriate and effective policies, procedures and controls were in place to mitigate financial crime risks across the Licensee’s client base 

Regulation 15 relates to ensuring compliance with the Regulations. This stipulates that a financial services business must establish such other policies, procedures and controls as may be appropriate and effective for the purpose of forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing. 

The Licensee was found to have breached Regulation 15 as it had ineffective procedures when it: (i) took on the clients from Company A; (ii) transferred the clients to SCTS; (iii) inadequately monitored its PEP clients; (iv) failed to promptly submit reports on suspicious activities; and (v) kept insufficient business records. 

Aggravating factors: 

The contraventions and non-fulfilments of the Licensee in this case are serious in nature. 

In particular the Commission was extremely concerned to find that the Licensee had: 

  • managed USD 1.1 billion of client assets where the SOW/SOF was uncorroborated; 
  • transferred USD 1.4 billion of assets to another jurisdiction when there was concern regarding potential tax evasion, with USD 265 million of these funds subsequently being declared in a tax amnesty; 
  • given insufficient regard to whether any of its clients’ funds had evaded taxes and were the proceeds of crime; and 
  • such were the magnitude of systemic and serious failings that it took over 3 years to remediate their client base. 

The contraventions exposed the Licensee and the Bailiwick to a significant risk of financial crime and reputational damage. 

Mitigating factors: 

The Licensee and Group embarked upon their own investigation when regulatory breaches were identified with the clients that had transferred to SCTS. 

The vast majority of failings originated prior to September 2016 and the Licensee has conducted a substantial remediation of its entire client base since this date. 

No evidence has been seen by the Commission to indicate that the Licensee’s failings were purposeful or malicious. 

At all times the Licensee co-operated fully with the Commission. The Licensee agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties and prohibitions. 

 

'On 19 March 2018, The Monetary Authority of Singapore published a public statement in regards to SCTS’s regulatory failings, in relation to clients it had received from the Licensee.

Safehaven International Limited, Mr Richard John Bach, Miss Tracey Jane Ozanne, Mr David Charles Housley Whitworth, Mr Michael John Good and Mr Stephen John Dickinson

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (“the Financial Services Commission Law”).
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”);
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”);
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”);
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the “Banking Law”) and
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Business Law”) (together “the Regulatory Laws”).
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”);
The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”);
Instruction (Number 6) for Financial Services Businesses (“Instruction 6”);

Safehaven International Limited, (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”).
Mr Richard John Bach (“Mr Bach”);
Mr Michael John Good (“Mr Good”);
Mr David Charles Housley Whitworth (“Mr Whitworth”);
Mr Stephen John Dickinson (“Mr Dickinson”) (together “the Directors”).
Miss Tracey Jane Ozanne (“Miss Ozanne” or “the MLRO”).

On 2 December 2020 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

• To impose a financial penalty of £100,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee;

• To impose a financial penalty of £50,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Bach;

• To impose a financial penalty of £10,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Good;

• To impose a financial penalty of £10,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Whitworth;

• To impose a financial penalty of £1,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Dickinson (reduced from £10,000 in the light of submissions as to personal circumstances);

• To impose a financial penalty of £5,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Miss Ozanne;

• To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Bach from performing the functions of controller, director, partner, manager, money laundering reporting officer, money laundering compliance officer and compliance officer of a regulated entity under any of the Regulatory Laws for a period of 6 years from the date of this public statement;

• To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Miss Ozanne from performing the functions of money laundering reporting officer, money laundering compliance officer and compliance officer of a regulated entity under any of the Regulatory Laws for a period of 5 years from the date of this public statement;

• To disapply the exemption set out in Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Bach for a period of 6 years; and

• To make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee and the Directors had failed to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Requirements, and the Firm, the Directors and the MLRO failed to meet the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law1.

BACKGROUND

In 1981, the Licensee was established in Guernsey.  It was granted a full fiduciary licence in September 2002.

Mr Bach has been the 100% shareholder and managing director of the Licensee during the period under review.

Mr Good has been a director of the Licensee since October 2014.

Mr Whitworth has been a director of the Licensee since June 2015.

Mr Dickinson was a director of the Licensee between April 2015 and December 2018.

Miss Ozanne has been the Firm’s Money Laundering Reporting Officer (“MLRO”) since May 2014 and was the Compliance Officer between May 2014 and January 2017.

The Firm is a licensed fiduciary company which enables high net worth individuals to create companies to own and manage aircraft and luxury yachts.  The Firm provides Directors to run these companies and administers the companies through which high value assets are brought, managed and sold; bank accounts and credit cards are operated and sizeable sums of money are moved.

The services offered by the Licensee are considered by the Commission as inherently high risk due to:

• a client base of ultra-high net worth individuals, many of whom are High Risk,
• many of whom are also Politically Exposed Persons (“PEPs”), and/or
• who live in or operate businesses (some of a high risk nature) in countries identified as high risk.

The nature of the Licensee’s services make it vulnerable to be used to facilitate the laundering of the proceeds of crime.

FINDINGS

The Commission conducted an on-site visit to the Licensee in October 2016.  The aim of the visit was to examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Licensee’s policies, procedures and controls in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations and the Handbook2.

In doing so, the Commission reviewed (among other things) thirteen client files.  Of the thirteen files reviewed, breaches of the Regulations and Rules were identified in at least nine files, equating to a 70% failure rate.

The issues fell broadly into seven categories and examples of these are detailed below.

Failure to properly conduct relationship risk assessments, taking into account relevant high-risk factors and to regularly review relationship risk assessments.

The Regulations and the Rules require that in order for a financial services business to consider the extent of its potential exposure to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing it must assess the risk of any proposed business relationship  prior to the establishment of a business relationship, and any occasional transaction; and there must be clear documented evidence as to the basis on which the assessment is made and the risk assessment must be regularly reviewed to keep it up to date3.

Company 1.  This company was incorporated in Guernsey in 2006 and the Licensee was the administrator of the company.  The purpose of the company was to own a motor yacht valued at circa 5 million euros. 

The client was an ultra-high net worth individual from a high-risk country.  During the business relationship  the Licensee identified that the client was working with and being associated with individuals who were politically exposed, and the client himself was identified as being involved in the management and control of state (high-risk country) owned organisations linked to armaments, the extractive industry and IT services for the military. 

The Licensee failed to identify the client as a PEP for the first ten years of the relationship, despite reviews in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2014 having noted material which should have readily identified the client as a PEP4.

The Licensee failed to conduct annual reviews of this High Risk client, despite this being a requirement of the Licensee’s own procedures. Risk assessments were incomplete and/or ineffective, with risk assessments not always being approved by a manager and warning signs identified in risk assessments not being followed up.

Company 2.  The company was set up and administered by the Licensee in 2009.  The purpose of the company was for the purchase of a circa £7 million motor yacht, which would be run on a commercial basis as a charter vessel.

The charter vessel was sold in 2015 for approximately £3.7 million (having been advertised originally at £6.9 million).  The funds from this sale were paid into the customer’s personal bank account.

Later in 2015, the Licensee was informed that the client had purchased a high value luxury asset for approximately £1.4 million.  The funds for this luxury asset were reported to have come partly from the sale of the charter vessel.

The Licensee set up a holding company for this luxury asset.

The Licensee became aware in August 2016 of media reports detailing that the client had been arrested in another jurisdiction for a multi-million pound fraud, reportedly linked to organised crime.  The news report detailed that as a result of the fraud the customer had opened up a web of bank accounts and money from these accounts was linked to, amongst other things, the purchase of luxury vessels.

In 2018, the customer was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and fined 20 million euros for the above fraud.  A media report at the time detailed the client’s ownership of the charter vessel and specifically named Guernsey as one of the locations where the customer’s bank accounts were held.

Throughout the relationship there were risk indicators which were not followed up or investigated, most notably:

• The failure to investigate the source of any of the funds for the purchase and maintenance of the assets held throughout  the relationship;
• The failure to investigate unexplained cash withdrawals on the credit cards issued on Company 2’s bank accounts, these ranging from circa 52,000 euros to circa 82,000 euros;
• Why funds from the chartering the motor yacht were paid direct to the client and not into Company 2’s bank accounts; and
• The lack of any documented rationale as to why the vessel was sold at such reduced price.

Company 3.  The Licensee took on the administration of the company in 2010.  The purpose of the company was to hold a motor yacht valued at circa 3.9 million euros. The clients (a father and son) behind this company also owned a large extraction company located in a jurisdiction listed by the Commission at the time as a jurisdiction which required a financial services business to exercise a greater deal of caution when dealing with business from the jurisdiction.

In 2014, news articles began circulating relating to the clients, these referred to:

• Allegations of fraud, embezzlement and forgery;
• The assets of the client’s extraction company had been frozen following a large industrial accident; and
• One of the clients was under arrest in relation to the industrial accident.

In 2016, the motor yacht was sold on request of the client.  In 2018, one of the clients was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in relation to the industrial accident.

A client risk assessment was conducted by the Licensee in September/October 2014, which highlighted the above high risk indicators, along with general CDD/EDD failings.  The Licensee failed to take any measurable steps to address these severe risks.

Company 4.  Risk assessments for this high risk client were not carried out sufficiently regularly once serious issues were raised re due diligence, failings were not reviewed by Managers and action points or warnings raised were not investigated or followed up.

Failure to carry out Client Due Diligence (“CDD”) and Enhanced Due Diligence (“EDD").

Regulations 4 and 5, and the relevant provisions of the Handbook detail the requirements needed to identify a customer and the extra measures required to establish the Source of Funds/Source of Wealth of high-risk customers.

Company 1.  The enquiries made of this high-risk PEP client regarding their Source of Wealth were met with the response ‘Own business.’ There was no evidence that the Licensee corroborated this statement.

The Licensee never established or corroborated the Source of Funds for the customer’s motor yacht valued at circa 5 million euros.

The Licensee, as at October 2016 (some ten years after the client had been taken on), still did not have a certified copy of the client’s passport; and did not have a certified copy of a utility bill by which the client’s address could be verified.

Company 2.  The Licensee failed to establish the source of funds used to purchase the £7 million motor yacht and failed to establish the source of funds for the high-risk client.

Company 3.  The Licensee failed to establish the source of wealth or source of funds for this high-risk client, with both being simply detailed as ‘own business.’ The Licensee accepted some CDD documents in a foreign language with no explanation of how the Licensee understood the information provided.

Company 4.  Failing to hold compliant CDD for the client for over 6 years.  Failing to carry out appropriate or any investigation so as to establish and corroborate the high-risk client’s source of wealth or source of funds for the purchase of a £4.6 million motor yacht.

Company 5.  Source of wealth recorded for the PEP client was recorded on the 2014 client risk assessment as ‘own businesses mainly based in DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo].’  No evidence was identified of any corroboration of this.

Failure to monitor existing business relationships.

Regulation 11 and Rules 274-278 of the Handbook stipulate that identification data for high-risk relationships or customers should be reviewed on an ongoing basis; and scrutiny should be made of transactions, in particular those that appear unusual.

Company 1.  One of the client’s companies made three loans of approximately 500,000 Euros to Company 1.  The Licensee did not document the commercial rationale for these transactions and thus could not demonstrate that it understood their purpose.

Company 2.  As part of the administration of the company, the Licensee monitored the transactions re credit cards issued on the company’s bank accounts.  However,

• In 2011, approximately 50,000 euros was withdrawn in cash.  These withdrawals were missed completely during the 2011 client risk assessment; and
• In 2012 and 2014, approximately 30,000 euros and 80,000 euros were withdrawn in cash.

The Licensee had no evidence of what these large sums of cash were used for.

Furthermore, the vessel owned by Company 2 was used as charter vessel and the arrangements for these charters were made through a company unconnected to the Licensee.  Between, 2010 and 2014, approximately 4.9 million euros was recorded as having been earned as a result of chartering, of which approximately 2.3 million of this was attributable to fees paid by the client.

The Licensee claimed that there was nothing unusual about a client chartering his own vessel or the amount paid.

The Commission noted that was no evidence that the Licensee had ever given consideration to the money laundering risks associated with an individual chartering a vessel owned by himself and the charter fees being paid back to him, particularly in circumstances where the Licensee held no evidence on source of wealth or source of funds for the purchase of the vessel.

Company 3.  Red flags identified during a 2014 client risk assessment included:

• 2014 media reports which contained allegations against the clients re fraud and tax evasion;
• 2014 media reports detailing that the assets of one of the clients had been frozen; and
• Due diligence was not up to date.

These red flags were ignored and no action was taken to address these known risks.  CDD documents requested in December 2015 were not provided until March 2017.

Company 4.  Funds were received into company accounts administered by the Licensee from unknown 3rd parties and without carrying out and obtaining appropriate due diligence of the source of those payments.

Company 6.  Monitoring of the business relationship was non-existent, leading to a situation in 2016 where it appeared from the information held on the file that the Licensee had no knowledge of: who the new UBO was (the original UBO had died in 2011); the location of the vessel held by the company; whether it was insured or who was using it.

Failure to comply with Instruction 6 issued in 2009.

Instruction 6 issued by the Commission in November 2009 required firms to review the policies, procedures and controls in place for existing customers to ensure that by close of business on 31 March 2010 the requirements of the Regulations and Chapter 8 of the Handbook were met for customers taken on before the 2007 Regulations came into force, and that the firm had taken any necessary action to remedy any identified deficiencies  and satisfy itself that CDD information which was appropriate to the assessed risk was held for those customers.

As is apparent from what has been set out above, the Licensee failed to comply with Instruction 6.

Failure to comply with timing of identification and verification requirements and the requirement to terminate the business relationship.

Regulation 4(3)(a)-(d) details the requirements for verifying the identity of a customer and beneficial owner.

Regulation 7 stipulates that identification and verification of identity pursuant to Regulations 4 and 5 must be carried out before or during the course of the establishment of a business relationship.

Regulation 9 stipulates that where a financial services business cannot comply with any of the provisions of Regulation 4(3)(a) to (d) [on verification of identity], it must terminate the relationship, or not enter into a proposed business relationship.

Company 1.  Despite occasional requests for verification of identity and address documentation resulting in no further documentation being obtained, consideration was not given by the Licensee to termination of the relationship with the client, due the inability to comply with Regulation 4(3)(a)-(d), until the Licensee terminated the relationship in June 2017.

As a result of the failures including those in relation to identification and verification of this customer, the Licensee was exposed to the potential risk of having been used to facilitate money laundering and the Licensee is not in a position to defend itself by being able to show that it had identified and assessed this risk and was fully compliant with the Regulations and Rules designed to protect fiduciaries from this risk.

Company 3.  The requirements for identification and verification of identity were not met before or during the course of the establishment of the relationship and no consideration was given to terminating the relationship as a result.

Failure to establish and maintain appropriate and effective procedures and controls to ensure compliance with the requirements to make disclosures.
Regulation 12(f) stipulates that a financial services business shall ensure that it establishes and maintains appropriate and effective procedures and controls as are necessary to ensure compliance with requirements to make disclosures under Part 1 of the Disclosure (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2007, as amended and sections 15 and 15A of the Terrorism and Crime (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2002, as amended
.

Company 3.  In September and October 2014, a Client Risk Assessment recorded the following details:

• An arrest warrant had been issued for one of the clients;
• The second client behind the Company had been arrested and charged; and
• An open source check had revealed that an individual linked to the company owned by the clients was involved in potential fraudulent activity and tax evasion.

However, a formal disclosure was not made by the Licensee until December 2016.  The Commission therefore concludes that the Licensee’s policies and procedures before December 2016 for identifying suspicious activity were inadequate, thus breaching Regulation 12(f).

Failure to establish effective policies, procedures and controls for forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing; and failure to establish and maintain an effective policy for the review of compliance, ensuring that a review of compliance was discussed and minuted at a meeting of the board at appropriate intervals.

Review of Compliance matters by the Board.  It is apparent from the Board minutes and the matters which emerged from the file reviews that prior to a remediation project instigated in 2014:

• The Licensee had no effective means of reviewing compliance or the effectiveness of its AML/CFT policies and no compliance monitoring programme;
• The MLRO position was not sufficiently resourced;
• Client relationships had not been either risk assessed or monitored; and
• Client due diligence requirements had not been complied with.

The 2014 remediation project. Reports compiled by separate outsourced compliance companies, the Commission’s 2016 onsite visit and the client file reviews detailed, showed that the steps taken by the Licensee between 2014 and 2016 were not effective to resolve the compliance failures.

Resourcing of the MLRO Function.  Miss Ozanne was appointed to the roles of MLRO and Compliance Officer with no previous experience; roles which are of central importance to a financial services business.  However, the Board also required her to deal with such things as staff HR, oversight of compliance projects, client matters, budgets, holding weekly staff meetings, and to be the link between the Managing Director, staff and managers.

The investigation into the Licensee identified that Miss Ozanne did not have either the time or the experience or expertise to carry out the function of MLRO effectively5

In particular, Miss Ozanne failed to:

• Ensure on a number of occasions that risk warnings were followed up or ensure that compliance failures were addressed;
• Ensure that the Board was adequately warned of the compliance risks faced by the Licensee during the 2014-2016 period;
• Complete client risk assessments and failed to inform the Board that the MLRO function was inadequately resourced, that the necessary tasks were not being completed and that it was not possible for her as MLRO to do so.

Effectiveness of the Board.  The Board of the Licensee was dominated by one person, Mr Bach during the period considered during the investigation.  Mr Bach’s leadership has been characterised by a failure to accord sufficient priority to matters of compliance and a failure to ensure that compliance failings were remediated in an effective manner.

Although the Licensee had sought to strengthen the Board with the addition of Mr Good and Mr Whitworth as non-executive Directors and Mr Dickinson as the Finance Director, their introduction did not ensure the transformation of the compliance health of the Licensee.

It was apparent to the Commission that none of the Directors were aware of the extent of the compliance failings and risks faced by the Licensee until they were pointed out by outsourced compliance companies and the Commission.

Mr Bach

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Bach failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence; or with the knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.

For example, Mr Bach:

• Failed to recognise the significance of warnings from staff or the independent compliance reports commissioned;

• Failed to take appropriate and/or effective action to remedy the failings or prevent failings in the future;

• Failed to dedicate sufficient resources at a sufficiently early stage to bring the Licensee into a compliant position; and

• When directly involved with making decisions on compliance matters, clients were allocated inappropriate risk ratings, insufficient due diligence was conducted and insufficient monitoring was undertaken.

Mr Good

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Good failed to demonstrate that he acted with diligence.

For example, Mr Good:

• Failed to give sufficient priority to compliance issues and failed to grasp the severity of the situation the Licensee was in between 2014-2016;

• Failed to question sufficiently what the Licensee was doing in terms of compliance, despite having held the position of MLRO at other firms.

Mr Whitworth

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Whitworth failed to demonstrate that he acted with diligence.

For example, Mr Whitworth:

• Failed to give sufficient priority to compliance issues and failed to grasp the severity of the situation the Licensee was in between 2014-2016;

• Failed to make adequate enquiries as to compliance matters; and

• Failed to investigate or realise the general extent of failings in the Licensee’s general compliance or the risks that the Licensee was exposed to through compliance failings.

Mr Dickinson

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Dickinson failed to demonstrate that he acted with diligence.

For example, Mr Dickinson:

• Failed to give sufficient priority to compliance issues and failed to grasp the severity of the situation the Licensee was in between 2014-2016; and

• Failed to raise enquiries or concerns as to the level of outstanding risk reviews or the inadequacy of the resources allocated to compliance.

Miss Ozanne

The Commission’s investigation identified that Miss Ozanne was not a fit and proper person to be a Money Laundering Reporting Officer of a licensed fiduciary.

For example, Miss Ozanne:

• Failed to follow up on deficiencies identified in client file reviews;

• Failed to conduct sufficient due diligence and sufficient monitoring, carried out inadequate or inaccurate assessments of risk and in some cases inexplicably downgraded client structures from High Risk to Standard Risk;

• Failed to make clear to the Board the seriousness of the compliance situation and the fact that the position of MLRO was not sufficiently resourced; and

• Failed to demonstrate a soundness of judgement when dealing with a number of high risk clients, thus exposing the Licensee to the risk of being used for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of crime.

In the imposition of the penalty on Miss Ozanne, the Commission has taken into account the fact that Miss Ozanne is a salaried employee and not a director of the Firm and that a 5 year prohibition order has also been made.

Aggravating factors

The result of the failings was that the Licensee was unable to assess the risks posed to it and the Bailiwick in terms of financial crime.  This was particularly serious given the high proportion of clients with High Risk or High Risk and PEP status.

The Licensee’s failings exposed the Bailiwick to the risk of financial crime.  In two of the client files reviewed there is a high possibility that structures administered by the Licensee may have been used for transactions involving the proceeds of crime, which is a matter which jeopardises the reputation of the Bailiwick as an international finance centre.

Mitigating factors

Since the compliance failings were identified in 2014 the Licensee has made efforts to rectify the contraventions and non-fulfilments through remediation projects.
At all times the Licensee, the Directors and the MLRO co-operated with the Commission during the investigation.

1 And also Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Law and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law, sets out the minimum criteria under these laws.
2 All references to the Handbook relate to the Handbook in use at the time.
3 Regulation 3 and Handbook Rules 52-61.
4 A breach of Regulation 4 and Rule 179 of the Handbook.
5 As prescribed at the time.1 And also Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Law and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law, sets out the minimum criteria under these laws.

Stephen Bougourd

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”);  
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”);  
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”);  
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”);  
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the “Banking Law”); and 
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Business Law”) (together “the Regulatory Laws”);
 
Mr Stephen Bougourd (“Mr Bougourd”)

 
On 7 December 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:
 
1. To impose a financial penalty of £7,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Bougourd;
 
2. To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Bougourd from performing the functions of director, controller, partner, manager and financial adviser of a regulated entity under any of the Regulatory Laws for a period of 362 days from the date of this public statement;
 
3. To disapply the exemption set out in Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Bougourd for 362 days; and
 
4. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.
 
The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr Bougourd failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing under Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law.
 
BACKGROUND
 
Introduction 

Between 30 March 2015 and 4 November 2016, Mr Bougourd was a Director and Head of Client Services for a company that undertook fiduciary activities under a full fiduciary licence (the “Licensee”).
 
In December 2015, Mr Bougourd received a referral from a colleague informing him of an enquiry from a third party (“Party A”), which required a Guernsey company. Party A’s lawyer was known to the Licensee and Party A had an existing client relationship with the Licensee, via one of its subsidiaries. However, Mr Bougourd was unable to follow up this referral at the time due to the pressure of other work commitments.
 
In early January 2016, Party A, through its lawyer, approached the Licensee directly and again enquired about the purchase of a Guernsey registered company, established in 2015.
 
On 22 January 2016, Mr Bougourd confirmed to Party A's lawyer that the Licensee had a company (“Company A”), established in 2015, that had only shares issued, no assets, liabilities or trading history. In essence, Company A was a shelf company, that is, a company that remained dormant but was readily available should the case arise. Company A had a corporate director of which Mr Bougourd was the representative.
 
On 25 January 2016, Party A's lawyer informed Mr Bougourd that Party A wanted to appoint its own directors to Company A, whilst also wishing Company A to be renamed (the “Renamed Company A”). Party A's lawyer also asked Mr Bougourd whether it was possible to have the transfer of the Licensee’s ownership of Company A to Party A, backdated to 2015.
 
Backdating of documentation
 
After an unrecorded telephone discussion between Mr Bougourd and Party A's lawyer, on 1 February 2016, Mr Bougourd signed a letter of engagement dated 31 December 2015, despite this date incorrectly representing when the Licensee and Party A had begun the business relationship.
 
On 8 February 2016, in a series of e-mail exchanges between Mr Bougourd and Party A's lawyer in relation to the transfer of ownership of Company A, Party A's lawyer asked for confirmation of “the transfer as of 31.12.2015 – the auditors are pushing us” whilst stating that in an ideal case “to keep in our records only the name [of the Renamed Company A]”.
 
On 16 February 2016, Mr Bougourd proposed the new business relationship at the Licensee’s Business Acceptance Committee. The Business Acceptance Form (“BAF”) reflected that the Licensee would provide “a limited service to Party A, (an existing Guernsey “shelf” company formed in 2015……”) whilst noting that "[Party A] will be wholly owned by [“Party B”], a Luxembourg company that is listed on the Euronext Paris market".  It included a “post-on boarding action point” which read, “To obtain from the advising lawyer the rationale for the structure and the nature of the services that will be provided intra-group”. Prior to the meeting, Mr Bougourd had not obtained the rationale for the structure, and he did not do so afterward despite the post-on boarding action point. There was no mention on the BAF that any documentation would have to be backdated in order to accept the on-boarding of this client.

During the course of February 2016, a number of administrative steps were taken to prepare 7 documents backdated to 31 December 2015.  Mr Bougourd signed these documents as an "A" signatory, either in his capacity as a director of the Licensee or as a representative of the Corporate director of Company A.
 
These documents created false and misleading business records showing the Licensee formally transferring their ownership of Company A to Party A, whilst resolving to change Company A’s name to Renamed Company A.
 
These documents included a stock transfer form, a Company A board minute, a share certificate, a declaration of trust, a written resolution, a letter from the Licensee and minutes of an Extraordinary General Meeting. Any third party reviewer of this documentation would have had the false impression that these events occurred on 31 December 2015, when they did not.
 
Submission of false and misleading information
 
On 24 February 2016, as a result of Mr Bougourd’s actions, a filing by the Licensee to a public body resulted in the creation of a false and misleading record that showed on 31 December 2015 two directors replaced Company A’s director, when this was not true.
 
Mr Bougourd also signed a further document backdated to 31 December 2015 in a formal request to change Company A’s name to Renamed Company A as of this date, in the knowledge that this would be submitted to a public body to alter an official record, despite this being untrue. 

Although it transpired that changing the name of Company A to Renamed Company A could not be backdated by the public body, this does not detract from Mr Bougourd’s intention.
 
Subsequent enquiries with Party A as to the rationale for the requirement of backdating the documentation failed to obtain any explanation from Party A.

FINDINGS  

When in 2016, Mr Bougourd was asked by Party A's lawyer whether it was possible to backdate the transfer and renaming of Company A to 2015, Mr Bougourd failed to enquire at that time of Party A's lawyer as to the rationale for backdating the transfer, or consider the potential regulatory, legal or financial crime risks of signing business records that would convey false information and be misleading.
 
Mr Bougourd should have known that by backdating the letter of engagement with Party A to 31 December 2015 it served as a false instrument, ensuring that any further documentation signed on or after 31 December 2015 would give the false appearance of having been executed after the client had been taken on.
 
Mr Bougourd failed to question certain financial crime red flags in his e-mail exchanges with Party A's lawyer on 8 February 2016, such as:
 
(i)    Why the auditor would be pushing for documentary evidence to show Party A’s ownership of the Renamed Company A, when on 31 December 2015 it was still owned by the Licensee and was Company A; and 

(ii)    Why Party A would not want any reference to Company A in their business records and whether this was an attempt to disguise the fact that the Renamed Company A, up until 31 December 2015, had a previous identity.
 
By Mr Bougourd backdating the transfer of ownership and appointing new directors so it appeared that on 31 December 2015 the Renamed Company A was owned by Party A, with Party A’s appointed directors, led to inaccurate business records that gave a false and misleading impression, as none of these events occurred until 2016.
 
Mr Bougourd maintained that his actions were done only to service an existing client’s needs on an enquiry that he believed he should have serviced in 2015, when Party A was first referred to him, but he was unable to deal with due to being under the pressures of work due, to a lack of staff resources.
 
In summary, Mr Bougourd abused his authority whilst as a director of the Licensee, prioritising servicing the client’s needs to the detriment of all else, failing to identify certain red flags or otherwise failing to give more immediate attention to those red flags that were identified, and forgoing his legal responsibilities as a director. At no time did he adequately consider the potential legal, regulatory, financial crime or reputational risks of knowingly signing documentation that misrepresented the facts and that he would have known were misleading, and which would have permanently formed part of Company A’s business records.
 
The failures by Mr Bougourd outlined above demonstrate a lack of probity, diligence, competence, soundness of judgement and as a result, Mr Bougourd failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law.
 
Aggravating Factors
 
Mr Bougourd’s actions which led to the creation of false and misleading business records, whilst also causing a public body to be misled into creating a false official record, were serious.
 
Mitigating Factors  

Mr Bougourd, whilst citing he was under pressure at work, asserts he was not motivated by financial gain in relation to accepting this client. Mr Bougourd fully cooperated with the investigation throughout and accepted the findings against him, agreeing to settle at an early stage. This has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the penalties imposed.  
 

Stephen Paul Dewsnip

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”)
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Law”)

Stephen Paul Dewsnip (“Mr Dewsnip”)

On 27 July 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £7,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Dewsnip; and

2. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr Dewsnip failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing under Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Background

Mr Dewsnip was a non-executive director of Global Insurance Group Limited (“GIGL”), which was licensed under the Insurance Law. Mr Dewsnip was a director of GIGL from 21 December 2011 to 25 August 2016.

Under an agreement between GIGL and a United Kingdom intermediary (which had some common ownership with GIGL) (“Intermediary A”), Intermediary A issued insurance policies on behalf of GIGL. Intermediary A was also able to collect premiums from policyholders on behalf of GIGL and retain a portion of the premiums as a loss fund to pay claims on behalf of GIGL (“the Claim Fund”). Bordereaux reports (a list, or summary, of policies issued and premiums charged and/or claims paid) should have been prepared monthly by Intermediary A and net premium settlements made quarterly to GIGL.

The Commission conducted a risk assessment visit to GIGL in July 2017 (“the July 2017 Visit”). As a result of the July 2017 Visit, the Commission had concerns over GIGL’s oversight of functions outsourced to Intermediary A, in particular the management of the Claims Fund. The Commission also found that GIGL had not conducted any audit of the activity carried out by Intermediary A and could not adequately monitor the solvency of GIGL due to the frequency of reporting from Intermediary A.

GIGL began to request that the payments be regularised from November 2015 onwards. However, regular payments from Intermediary A were not forthcoming. The outstanding amounts were only paid to GIGL after intervention by the Commission and after investment into Intermediary A by a third party. This called into question the liquidity of GIGL’s major asset.

Findings

As a director of GIGL, Mr Dewsnip failed to ensure the implementation of effective systems of control, in particular in relation to the Claims Fund held by, and the bordereaux reporting from, Intermediary A.

As a director of GIGL, Mr Dewsnip also failed to ensure that the amounts due from Intermediary A were paid to GIGL in a timely manner.

Aggravating Factors

The actions of Mr Dewsnip could have seriously put at risk the payment of claims to policyholders and therefore could have posed a risk to the reputation of the Bailiwick as an international finance centre.

Mitigating Factors

Mr Dewsnip accepted the findings against him and agreed to settle at an early stage. This has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the financial penalty imposed.

Shane Younger and Christopher Percival

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”)
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Law”)

Global Insurance Group Limited (“GIGL”)
Shane Younger (“Mr Younger”)
Christopher Percival (“Mr Percival”)


On 10 July 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £48,650 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Younger;

2. To impose a financial penalty of £30,100 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Percival; and

3. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr Younger and Mr Percival failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing under Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Background

Mr Younger and Mr Percival were non-executive directors (from 22 December 2011 to 22 February 2019 and 22 December 2011 to 14 July 2017 respectively) and the majority shareholders of Global Insurance Group Limited (“GIGL”) which was licensed under the Insurance Law. Mr Younger and Mr Percival are also Chief Executive and director of a United Kingdom insurance intermediary (“Intermediary A”) respectively. Mr Younger and Mr Percival are also minority shareholders in the ultimate holding company of Intermediary A. As a result of Mr Younger and Mr Percival’s position with Intermediary A, they had access to more information than the other GIGL directors regarding Intermediary A’s business activities related to GIGL.

Under an agreement between GIGL and Intermediary A, Intermediary A issued insurance policies on behalf of GIGL. Intermediary A was also able to collect premiums from policyholders on behalf of GIGL and retain a portion of the premiums as a loss fund to pay claims on behalf of GIGL (“the Claim Fund”). Bordereaux reports (a list, or summary, of policies issued and premiums charged and/or claims paid) should have been prepared monthly by Intermediary A and, if due, net premium settlements made quarterly to GIGL.

The Commission conducted a risk assessment visit to GIGL in July 2017 (“the 2017 Visit”). In the period prior to the 2017 Visit, apart from the first quarterly payment to GIGL by Intermediary A, the only payments made were the exact amounts required to pay GIGL’s reinsurers. GIGL’s management accounts showed that the amounts outstanding from Intermediary A grew whilst GIGL’s cash remained low. The amounts due from Intermediary A were GIGL’s major asset.

GIGL began to request that the payments be regularised from November 2015 onwards. However, regular payments from Intermediary A were not forthcoming. The outstanding amounts were only paid to GIGL after intervention by the Commission and after investment into Intermediary A by a third party.

Findings

Mr Younger

During the relevant period of 2012 to February 2019:

As a non-executive director of GIGL, Mr Younger failed to ensure the implementation of effective systems of control, in particular in relation to the Claim Fund held by, and the bordereaux reporting from, Intermediary A. Whilst Mr Younger contends that other directors of GIGL were visiting Intermediary A to check the accuracy of reporting by Intermediary A, those directors claim no visits to check the accuracy of reporting took place and no reports of any checks undertaken at such visits have been provided.

As a non-executive director of GIGL, Mr Younger also failed to ensure that the amounts due from Intermediary A were paid to GIGL in a timely manner, in particular after November 2015 when this was first raised with Intermediary A by GIGL.

A risk register was prepared by another director of GIGL in October 2016, which was subsequently considered by Mr Younger as a director of GIGL. Credit risk, which was defined as financial loss through counterparty failing to meet obligations, was deemed to be low likelihood and medium impact in the risk assessment.

A risk assessment of outsourced activity was also prepared by another director of GIGL in May 2018, which was again considered by Mr Younger as a non-executive director of GIGL. Again, credit risk was deemed to be low likelihood and medium impact.

Given the issues that had been ongoing since November 2015 regarding the payments due from Intermediary A and that Intermediary A was GIGL’s largest debtor, this is surprising. As a result, Mr Younger failed to adequately consider the risks to GIGL of Intermediary A failing to honour its debt to GIGL.

The failures by Mr Younger outlined above demonstrate a lack of competence, experience, sound judgement and diligence by Mr Younger and as a result Mr Younger failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Mr Percival

During the relevant period of 2012 to July 2017:

As a non-executive director of GIGL, Mr Percival failed to ensure the implementation of effective systems of control, in particular in relation to the Claim Fund held by, and the bordereaux reporting from, Intermediary A. Whilst Mr Percival contends that other directors of GIGL were visiting Intermediary A to check the accuracy of reporting by Intermediary A, those directors claim no visits to check the accuracy of reporting took place and no reports of any checks undertaken at such visits have been provided.

As a non-executive director of GIGL, Mr Percival also failed to ensure that the amounts due from Intermediary A were paid to GIGL in a timely manner, in particular after November 2015 when this was first raised with Intermediary A by GIGL.

Mr Percival failed to adequately consider the risks to GIGL of Intermediary A failing to honour its debt to GIGL despite the issues that were occurring with Intermediary A’s failure to pay at the time of his consideration of the risk assessment prepared in October 2016.

The failures by Mr Percival outlined above demonstrate a lack of competence, experience, sound judgement and diligence by Mr Percival and as a result Mr Percival failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Aggravating Factors

The actions of Mr Younger and Mr Percival could have seriously put at risk the payment of claims to policyholders and therefore could have posed a risk to the reputation of the Bailiwick as an international finance centre.

Mitigating Factors

Mr Younger and Mr Percival accepted the findings against them and agreed to settle at an early stage. This has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the financial penalties imposed.

Global Insurance Group Limited, Christopher Schofield, Andrew William Robert

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”)
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Law”)

Global Insurance Group Limited (“GIGL”)
Christopher Schofield (“Mr Schofield”)
Andrew William Robert (“Mr Robert”)

On 8 June 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £42,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on GIGL;

2. To impose a financial penalty of £17,500 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Schofield;

3. To impose a financial penalty of £10,500 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Robert; and

4. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that GIGL had materially contravened the Insurance Law and that GIGL, Mr Schofield and Mr Robert failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing under Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Background

GIGL is a Guernsey company incorporated on 21 December 2011. GIGL was licensed to conduct general insurance business by the Commission on 25 January 2012. GIGL provided medical health insurance products to expatriate individuals and companies employing expatriates around the world.

Mr Schofield has been a director of GIGL since 22 December 2011. Mr Robert was a director of GIGL from 21 December 2011 to 14 July 2017.

Under an agreement between GIGL and a United Kingdom intermediary (which had some common ownership with GIGL) (“Intermediary A”), Intermediary A issued insurance policies on behalf of GIGL. Intermediary A was also able to collect premiums from policyholders on behalf of GIGL and retain a portion of the premiums as a loss fund to pay claims on behalf of GIGL (“the Claim Fund”). Bordereaux reports (a list, or summary, of policies issued and premiums charged and/or claims paid) should have been prepared monthly by Intermediary A and net premium settlements made quarterly to GIGL.

The Commission conducted a risk assessment visit to GIGL in July 2017 (“the July 2017 Visit”). As a result of the July 2017 Visit, the Commission had concerns over GIGL’s oversight of functions outsourced to Intermediary A, in particular the management of the Claims Fund. The Commission also found that GIGL had not conducted any audit of the activity carried out by Intermediary A and could not adequately monitor the solvency of GIGL due to the frequency of reporting from Intermediary A.

Findings

GIGL

As a significant part of GIGL’s business was outsourced to Intermediary A and (as GIGL could outsource functions but not responsibility) it was an important function of GIGL to oversee the functions outsourced to Intermediary A, including that the reporting from Intermediary A was accurate.

Mr Schofield and Mr Robert confirmed to the Commission that no visits to Intermediary A were made for the purposes of checking the accuracy of the reporting to GIGL by Intermediary A prior to the July 2017 Visit. In addition, no documentation was provided to the Commission that showed that such checks were being undertaken. Mr Schofield and Mr Robert told the Commission that GIGL took the information provided by Intermediary A at face value and that GIGL relied on the GIGL directors who were also directors and/or shareholders of Intermediary A to raise issues.

As a result, GIGL failed to establish, and operate within, effective systems of risk management and internal controls and failure to retain at least the same degree of oversight of, and accountability for, any outsourced material activity or function (such as a control function) as applies to non-outsourced activity. Therefore GIGL breached (i) Principles A:10 and A:16 of the Code of Corporate Governance from 1 April 2016; and (ii) prior to 1 April 2016 paragraphs 2(h) and 3(b) of the Licensed Insurers Code of Corporate Governance. GIGL also failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in paragraphs 1(2) and 6(1) of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

In the period prior to the July 2017 Visit, apart from the first quarterly payment to GIGL by Intermediary A, the only payments made were the exact amounts required to pay GIGL’s reinsurers. GIGL’s management accounts showed that the amounts outstanding from Intermediary A grew whilst GIGL’s cash remained low. The amounts due from Intermediary A were GIGL’s major asset.

GIGL began to request that the payments be regularised from November 2015 onwards. However, regular payments from Intermediary A were not forthcoming. The outstanding amounts were only paid to GIGL after intervention by the Commission and after investment into Intermediary A by a third party. This called into question the liquidity of GIGL’s major asset.

As a result, GIGL failed to maintain adequate liquidity or make adequate provision for depreciation or diminution in the value of its assets (including provision for bad or doubtful debts). Therefore, GIGL failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

The amounts due from Intermediary A were deemed to have been outstanding for more than 90 days as at 30 April 2017 and 30 April 2018. This resulted in these amounts attracting a capital factor of 100% under the Insurance Business (Solvency) Rules, 2015 (“the Solvency Rules”) (i.e. in effect they are ignored as an asset in calculating whether GIGL complied with solvency requirements). As a result, as at 30 April 2017 and 30 April 2018 GIGL failed to hold regulatory capital resources greater than or equal to its Prescribed Capital Requirement in breach of paragraph 9 of the Solvency Rules. GIGL also failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in paragraphs 1(2) and 6(1) of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law. In addition, GIGL failed at all times to maintain capital resources in accordance with rules of the Commission in breach of section 30(1) of the Insurance Law.

GIGL failed to deposit the annual return, accounts and audit report for the periods ending 30 April 2015, 30 April 2016, 30 April 2017 and 30 April 2018 within a period of four months beginning on the close of the financial year to which the accounts relate in breach of section 37(1) of the Insurance Law.

The significant amount of activity carried on by Intermediary A, the lack of oversight of this activity by GIGL and the lack of cash flow into GIGL brings into question whether there was any substance to the activity of GIGL within the Bailiwick.

Mr Schofield

As a director of GIGL, Mr Schofield failed to ensure the implementation of effective systems of control, in particular in relation to the Claims Fund held by, and the bordereaux reporting from, Intermediary A.

As a director of GIGL, Mr Schofield also failed to ensure that the amounts due from Intermediary A were paid to GIGL in a timely manner, in particular after November 2015 when this was first raised with Intermediary A by GIGL.

Mr Schofield prepared a risk register on behalf of GIGL in October 2016, which was subsequently considered by the board of GIGL. Credit risk, which was defined as financial loss through counterparty failing to meet obligations, was deemed to be low likelihood and medium impact by Mr Schofield.

Mr Schofield also prepared a risk assessment of outsourced activity in May 2018, which was again considered by the board of GIGL. Again, credit risk was deemed to be low likelihood and medium impact.

Given the issues that had been ongoing since November 2015 regarding the payments due from Intermediary A, that Intermediary A was GIGL’s largest debtor and that Mr Schofield subsequently told the Commission that the board had increasing concerns about the repatriation of funds during 2017 to 2018, this is surprising. As a result, Mr Schofield failed to adequately consider the risks to GIGL of Intermediary A failing to honour its debt to GIGL.

The failures by Mr Schofield outlined above demonstrate a lack of competence, experience, sound judgement and diligence by Mr Schofield and as a result Mr Schofield failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Mr Robert

During his time as a director of GIGL, Mr Robert failed to ensure the implementation of effective systems of control, in particular in relation to the Claims Fund held by, and the bordereaux reporting from, Intermediary A.

As a director of GIGL, Mr Robert also failed to ensure that the amounts due from Intermediary A were paid to the Licensee in a timely manner, in particular after November 2015 when this was first raised with Intermediary A by GIGL.

Mr Robert failed to adequately consider the risks to GIGL of Intermediary A failing to honour its debt to GIGL despite the issues that were occurring with Intermediary A’s failure to pay at the time of his consideration of the risk assessment prepared by Mr Schofield in October 2016.

The failures by Mr Robert outlined above demonstrate a lack of competence, experience, sound judgement and diligence by Mr Robert and as a result Mr Robert failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Law.

Aggravating Factors

GIGL had more than 2,000 policyholders around the world and the lack of adequate capital and liquidity could have seriously put at risk the payment of claims to these policyholders and therefore posed a risk to the reputation of the Bailiwick.

Mitigating Factors

Mr Robert made efforts to raise the issues during his time as a director (and subsequently). In addition, Mr Robert raised with the board of GIGL the fact that GIGL continued not to receive quarterly settlements despite the request to regularise payments in November 2015.

Mr Schofield made extensive efforts to rectify the breaches following the July 2017 Visit. This included recommending to the GIGL board in June 2018 that it cease underwriting new insurance business.

GIGL is no longer writing insurance business and has paid all known outstanding claims.

The Commission is not aware of any policyholders not being paid due to the lack of liquidity within GIGL.

GIGL, Mr Schofield and Mr Robert have been open and co-operative with the Commission since the issues were identified.

GIGL, Mr Schofield and Mr Robert accepted the findings against them and agreed to settle at an early stage. This has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the financial penalties imposed.

Criteria Wealth Management Limited, Mark Peter Penney, Marc Adam Roxby

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services  Commission Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”)  

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the  “IMII Law”)  

The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Law”)  

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick  of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)  

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the “Banking Law”) (together the  “Regulatory Laws”) 

Criteria Wealth Management Limited (“CWM”) 

Mr Mark Peter Penney (“Mr Penney”) 

Mr Marc Adam Roxby (“Mr Roxby”) 

On 4 May 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided: 

1. As a result of the company having been compulsorily wound up as at 31 January 2019, with no  funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors, to impose no penalty on CWM under section  11D of the Financial Services Commission Law; it should be noted that, but for the insolvent  liquidation of CWM, the Commission considered that a discretionary penalty of £50,000 on CWM  pursuant to section 11D of the FSC Law would have been appropriate (ceteris paribus);  

2. To impose a financial penalty of £40,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission  Law on Mr Penney; 

3. To make orders under section 34E of the POI Law, section 18A of the IMII Law, section 28A of  the Insurance Law, section 17A of the Banking Law and section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law,  prohibiting Mr Penney from holding the position of director, controller, partner, manager, financial  advisor, general representative or authorised insurance representative for a period of 6 years;  

4. To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Penney  for a period of 6 years; 

5. To impose a financial penalty of £20,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission  Law on Mr Roxby; 

6. To make orders under section 34E of the POI Law, section 18A of the IMII Law, section 28A of  the Insurance Law, section 17A of the Banking Law and section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law,  prohibiting Mr Roxby, from holding the position of director, controller, partner or manager for a  period of 4 years; 

7. To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Roxby  for a period of 4 years; and 

8. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law. 

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having  concluded that CWM, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing, and  in particular that Mr Penney was not a fit and proper person to hold the positions of director, controller,  partner, manager, financial adviser, general representative or authorised insurance representative and  Mr Roxby was not a fit and proper person to hold the positions of director, controller, partner or manager  under Schedule 4 to the POI Law and the IMII Law (and also were not fit and proper persons to hold  those respective positions in terms of Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law, Schedule 7 to the Insurance  Law and Schedule 3 to the Banking Law, which set out the minimum criteria under these Laws). 

Background 

CWM is a Guernsey company, incorporated on 27 September 2012. CWM had six full time employees  until 2018, including three financial advisors, which included Mr Penney and Mr Roxby (from 25 February 2013 to 29 June 2018). Mr Penney was the Managing Director of CWM from incorporation  until 31 January 2019 and Mr Roxby was a director of CWM from 2 December 2014 to 15 June 2018.   

CWM was licensed under the POI Law and the IMII Law on 20 December 2012. CWM was licensed  under POI Law to carry on the restricted activities of Advice and Promotion in connection with  Category 1 Controlled Investments – Collective Investment Schemes.  CWM was not at any material  time licensed to carry out any restricted activity in relation to Category 2 Controlled Investments -  General securities and derivatives.  CWM was licensed under the IMII Law as an insurance  intermediary, to advise on and arrange long-term life insurance, savings products and single premium  business.   

The Commission conducted an on-site thematic visit at CWM in October 2013 (“the 2013 Visit”).   Following the 2013 Visit, CWM wrote to the Commission outlining improvements in CWMs processes  and procedures.  The Commission wrote to CWM again in July 2015 warning CWM against switching  clients without proper consideration of rebalancing risks within existing products and had set out the  Commission’s expectation that exit penalties, investment timeframes, adviser remuneration and product  provider charges should form part of the assessment underlying any recommendation. The Commission  conducted a further on-site visit of CWM in April 2016 (“the 2016 Visit”). The purpose of this visit  was to ascertain compliance with the Commission’s letter of July 2015.  The Commission found issues  including lack of evidence that recommended surrender/withdrawal was in clients’ best interests;  ineffective peer review of Advice provided to clients; and acting outside the terms of CWM’s licence  by performing the restricted activity of Management. Whilst CWM disagreed with the Commission’s  findings from the 2016 Visit, CWM committed to implement a Risk Mitigation Plan.  

In May 2017, a complaint was made to the Commission by a licensed entity - on behalf of its client,  and CWM’s former client, Client X.  Client X was an elderly client and CWM’s largest client from  December 2013 onwards until the end of the client relationship.  The licensee also provided the  Commission with copies of documents provided by CWM to Client X.  These documents disclosed a  sale of CWM’s own shares to Client X by Mr Penney.  The documents also identified advice provided  to Client X relating to the surrender of long-term insurance bonds.  The pattern of advice evidenced in  the Client X file raised concerns of widespread similar practice of unsuitable advice and led to the  Commission reviewing a sample of other client files to determine if the pattern of unsuitable advice was  more widespread.  

Following consideration of the investment advice in the client files, the Commission noted that CWM  was advising on and promoting Structured Notes, which the Commission believed were Category 2  Controlled Investments.  CWM was not licensed to advise on and promote Category 2 Controlled  Investments.   

Mr Roxby resigned from CWM with effect from 16 June 2018. Mr Penney and a Non-Executive  Director sought a purchaser for CWM’s book of business, but ultimately this search was not successful.  An order for the compulsory winding up of CWM was obtained dated 31 January 2019. The  Commission accepted surrender of CWM’s licences under the POI Law and the IMII Law on 28  February 2019.  

Findings 

CWM’s Sale of Structured Notes 

CWM was licensed under the POI Law to carry on the restricted activities of “Advice” and “Promotion”  in connection with Category 1 Controlled Investments – Collective Investment Schemes.  It is not  disputed by CWM, Mr Penney or by Mr Roxby that CWM was not licensed at any time to carry out  any restricted activity in relation to Category 2 Controlled Investments – General Securities and  Derivatives.   

The Structured Notes advised on and promoted by CWM are contracts that fall within the classification  of Category 2 Controlled Investments under Schedule 1 of the POI Law by reason of the investments  comprising derivatives.  Some of the Structured Note fact sheets seen by the Commission state that the  product is a derivative instrument. 

The Structured Notes that CWM was promoting to and recommending to its clients were typically  structured products comprising a bond plus a derivative instrument or instruments (typically linked to  the value of one or more equities). CWM engaged in the Restricted Activities of Promotion and Advice  in relation to the Structured Notes.  CWM was not licensed to promote or advise on Category 2  Controlled Investments and therefore in promoting and/or advising on Structured Notes, CWM was  conducting unlicensed business. 

Mr Penney and Mr Roxby’s position in response to the Commission was that the categorisation of the  Structured Notes was a “grey area” and they believed that the Structured Notes did not fall within  Category 2 Controlled Investments.  

The question of whether the licence of a business extends to cover the business being conducted is so  fundamental, and the consequences of conducting unlicensed business are so serious, that the CWM  Directors ought to have taken legal/expert advice on what they considered at the time to be a “grey  area” to resolve the issue before starting to sell Structured Notes to their clients. It was not disputed that  no such advice was taken at that time.  

The consequences of conducting unlicensed business in Structured Notes  

The Structured Notes comprised a significant part of CWM’s business.  In the period 11 March 2014 to  26 April 2018, Mr Roxby advised CWM’s clients to invest a total of £2,865,000 in 148 Structured  Notes.  In the same period, Mr Penney advised CWM’s clients to invest a total of £745,000 in Structured  Notes. The consequences of CWM conducting unlicensed business in relation to Structured Notes, and  of Mr Penney and Mr Roxby collectively failing to prevent CWM undertaking controlled investment  business for which it was not licenced, have been, predictably, serious in that – 

• CWM has contravened section 1(1) of the POI Law in relation to advice, promotion and sales of  Structured Notes to its clients over the years 2014 - 2018; 

• CWM’s professional indemnity insurers have to date refused to provide indemnity in relation to  advice, promotion and sales of Structured Notes by CWM, because it was unlicensed business and  thus clients of CWM, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby have been exposed to, and in some cases have  suffered, uninsured losses (although there may be recourse through an award by the Channel  Islands Ombudsman in respect of a small number of complainants and professional indemnity  insurance may respond in respect of these albeit no awards nor confirmation of the insurance  position have been confirmed to date); and 

• CWM has been exposed to reputational risk, legal risk and regulatory risks. 

As at 31 December 2018, CWM had received requests for compensation in relation to the Structured  Notes in the sum of £79,000 and had settled one complaint in the sum of £4,000 compensation.  

The contraventions and the conduct by CWM, of unlicensed business, is evidence of a failure on the  part of CWM to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing under Schedule 4 of the POI Law in the  following respects: 

• Paragraph 1(2)(b)(i), ‘contravened any provision contained in or made under this Law’; and 

• Paragraphs 2(1)(b) and (c) which state the ‘business of the applicant or licensee… will be carried  on’, ‘with professional skill appropriate to the nature of the activities’ and ‘in a manner which will  not tend to bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre’.  

Both Mr Penney and Mr Roxby failed to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing under Schedule 4  of the POI Law in the following respects:  

• Paragraph 1(1)(a), ‘competence’ and ‘soundness of judgement’ by giving advice to clients  recommending Structured Notes, which comprised Category 2 Controlled Investment Business for which CWM was not licensed and failing to obtain proper advice about the controlled investment  status of the Structured Notes;  

• Paragraph 1(1)(c), jeopardising the ‘reputation of the Bailiwick as a reputable finance centre’,  evidenced by investor complaints resulting from CWM’s Category 2 Controlled Investment  Advice;  

• Paragraph 1(1)(e), ‘knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be  assumed or undertaken’ in terms of the failure to realise their recommended Structured Notes  investments as Category 2 Controlled Investments under the POI Law;  

• Paragraph 1(1)(g), ‘policies, procedures and controls to comply with any rules, codes, guidance,  principles and instructions’ by the failure of CWM’s investment policy and committee to correctly  identify that CWM’s licence did not include advice or promotion of Category 2 Controlled  Investments under the POI Law and under the POI Law; and 

• Paragraph 2(b) “contravened any provision contained in or made under – this Law …or the  regulatory laws”. 

Whether CWM provided suitable Advice and Information to its clients about Structured Notes 

The Structured Notes were complex and high risk investments and each of the financial advisors  promoting and recommending these products to clients (had this been licenced business of CWM which  as set out above, it was not) ought not to have done so, without a proper understanding of the risks and  the disadvantages of investing in these products, and without communicating those risks to the clients.  Over the period 2014 to 2016, CWM, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby wrongly categorised the Structured  Notes as low risk when they were high risk and this led to unsuitable recommendations being made to  many of their retail clients, who had low risk appetites, to purchase Structured Notes.  This was a breach  of Rule 5.2.2(c)(i)  of the Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2009, 2014 and 2016 (“the Licensee  Rules”).  Clients were therefore not made aware of the true nature of the risks of the Structured Notes,  in particular the risks of capital loss up to 100% of capital invested, which is a breach of Rule 5.2.3(d)  of the Licensee Rules.   

Further, CWM did not provide a clear statement of prior disclosure in relation to all remuneration that  it was to receive for the Structured Notes transactions, indeed it made statements that failed to disclose  the distribution fees paid to CWM on the Structured Notes which could be as high as 8% of the capital  invested.  This was a breach of Rule 5.2.4 of the Licensee Rules. This comprised a breach of Rule  5.2.3(a) of The Licensees (Conduct of Business Rules) 2009 which obliged the Firm to provide prior  disclosure to its client of “the basis or amount of its charges” for the provision of services and a breach  of Rule 5.2.3(d) of The Licensees (Conduct of Business Rules) 2009 which obliged the Firm not to  recommend a transaction to a client unless it had taken “reasonable steps to make him aware of the risks  involved including conflicts of interest” and a breach of Principle 5.  From 1 January 2015, this also  comprised a breach of Rule 5.2.4(b) of The Licensees (Conduct of Business Rules) 2014 and 2016  which requires the Firm to provide prior disclosure of all charges/remuneration to be received in  connection with each associated transaction and again a breach of Principle 5 as set out above.  

CWM’s Financial Advisors, including Mr Penney and Mr Roxby, were required only to provide advice  on matters upon which they were competent and qualified to advise.  CWM’s Board failed to ensure  that each of its financial advisers held such qualifications to at least the minimum standard as published  by the Commission. CWM’s Advisors did not have qualifications meeting the Commission’s published  minimum requirements relating to Category 2 Controlled Investments when they should have both had  the requisite qualifications no later than 31 March 2016.  This was a breach of Rule 3.5.3(e) of the  Licensee Rules. 

The contraventions set out above represent a failure by CWM to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for  Licencing in terms of the POI Law Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(1)(b) ‘with professional skill appropriate  to the nature and scale of his activities’ and 2(2)(b) ‘act in accordance with’ the Principles of Conduct  of Finance Business (“the Principles”); and in terms of the IMII Law Schedule 4, Paragraph 1(1)(b)  ‘with professional skill appropriate to the nature and scale of his activities’ and 1(2)(a)(i) ‘act in accordance with’ the Principles.  

Mr Penney failed to ensure CWM adhered to Principle 2 of the Principles.  In this regard Mr Penney  failed to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing as described in Schedule 4 to both the POI Law and  IMII Law in terms of: 

• Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(a) of the IMII Law, “competence” and  “soundness of judgement” in relation to unsuitable Advice provided to CWM’s clients  recommended Structured Notes; and  

• Paragraph 1(1)(e) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IMII Law, ‘knowledge and  understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be assumed or undertaken’,  demonstrated by the multiple contraventions contained in Structured Notes recommendations,  advice and information provided by Mr Penney.  

Mr Roxby also provided unsuitable Advice to CWM’s clients, recommending Structured Notes  investments. Mr Roxby failed to ensure CWM adhered to Principle 2 of the Principles.  Mr Roxby  therefore failed to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing as described in Schedule 4 to both the POI  Law and the IMII Law in terms of: 

• Paragraph 1(1)(a) and Paragraph 3(2)(a) of IMII Law, “competence” and “soundness of  judgement” in relation to his unsuitable Structured Note Advice to CWM’s clients; and  

• Paragraph 1(1)(e) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IMII Law, ‘knowledge and  understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be assumed or undertaken’,  demonstrated by the multiple contraventions contained in Structured Notes recommendations,  advice and information provided by Mr Roxby.  

CWM’s Advice to and Dealings with Client X 

Whether CWM provided suitable advice to Client X 

Mr Penney  

Client X was at the relevant time an elderly retail client with some knowledge of financial transactions  but no professional expertise. Mr Penney advised Client X to surrender two insurance bonds in  February/March 2014.  Mr Penney advised Client X to reinvest the proceeds of one bond (“the larger  insurance bond”) into three similar bonds from the same provider in order to provide for Client X’s  heirs.  Mr Penney advised Client X to reinvest the proceeds of the second bond (“the smaller insurance  bond”) into a discretionary managed portfolio.  This advice was unsuitable.   

In particular: 

1. Mr Penney failed to establish and/or record Client X’s investment objectives and risk tolerance  properly or consistently.  File notes made by Mr Penney and the recommendation letters were  inconsistent with regard to investment objectives and risk tolerance. Mr Penney would record  his advice in these documents as if the idea for the advice or strategy had come from Client X,  when in fact it had been Mr Penney’s advice or suggested strategy.  This was seen throughout  the documentation and was disingenuous at best, and, at worst, thoroughly misleading. 

2. Mr Penney provided unsuitable advice and, in some cases, misleading advice (including tax  advice on which he was not qualified to advise) to Client X, in relation to the larger insurance  bond.  Mr Penney failed to establish that the transaction he recommended in relation to the  larger insurance bond was in Client X’s best interests. 

3. Mr Penny also gave misleading advice about the tax liabilities that Client X had “accrued”,  giving the impression, as recorded in his recommendation letters and his file notes of  conversations with Client X, that they had somehow accrued a tax bill of nearly £600,000. He  later made admissions to the Commission that the tax had not in fact accrued (and was not in  fact payable at the time and would not be payable at all by Client X’s heirs on the demise of  Client X) and further that the maximum tax payable by a Guernsey resident was £220,000 in  any one year.  Despite these facts, Mr Penney repeatedly gave the impression to Client X that  his suggested restructure of the insurance bonds would save Client X’s tax liabilities and allow  Client X “to take advantage” of the tax cap of £220,000 when the truth was that the tax cap was  always available. 

4. Mr Penney should not have recommended this complex and difficult transaction without  independent expert tax advice which Client X should have received in writing and which  stipulated that the transaction was in their best interests.  Without this, it was impossible for Mr  Penney to reconcile his conflict of interest – CWM would earn no trail fees on the existing  insurance bonds (ie. if the original structure was left in place) but would only earn initial, and  trail fees, on new or restructured products. This was not disclosed to Client X, and the conflict  of interest neither disclosed nor managed.  

5. In relation to the smaller insurance bond, which had no tax issues, Mr Penney’s  recommendation was to encash this bond in its entirety and invest in a discretionary managed  portfolio – thus paying new on-boarding fees (and generating initial and trail fees for CWM  which would otherwise not have been available to CWM had the initial structure remained in  place). Mr Penney failed to establish that the transaction he recommended in relation to the  smaller insurance bond was in Client X’s best interests. 

6. Mr Penney failed to advise Client X about alternative restructures or investments that might be  more cost effective and tax efficient solutions for them.   

7. Mr Penney failed to disclose remuneration to be earned by CWM on products sold to Client X,  and recommendation letters were in some cases misleading in implying that CWM would not  earn commissions or fees on particular products sold to Client X, when they would in fact do  so; and 

8. Mr Penney made internal file notes, which purported to be contemporaneous records of advice  given to Client X and of conversations held with Client X.  These were in fact so confusing and  internally contradictory that they could not be relied upon as contemporaneous evidence unless  also corroborated by external evidence; Mr Penney had in fact drafted several file notes relating  to Client X during 2017 in response to a request for more information from his compliance  officer, but had backdated these file notes to give the appearance that they were  contemporaneous notes recording advice given to Client X in 2014.  

During the period 2014 to 2016, Mr Penney gave additional unsuitable advice to Client X in relation to  Structured Notes and other investments.  In particular: 

1. Mr Penney failed to establish and/or record Client X’s investment objectives and risk tolerance  properly or consistently.  

2. Mr Penney provided unsuitable advice to Client X and failed to give proper risk warnings in  relation to the Structured Notes and other investments over the period 2014-2017, in that the  Structured Notes were proposed as low risk when they were in fact high risk and warnings  given about the risk of capital losses were either absent or insufficient; and 

3. Mr Penney failed to disclose, sufficiently or at all, the remuneration to be earned by CWM on  products sold to Client X, and recommendation letters were in some cases misleading in  implying that CWM would not earn commissions or fees on particular products sold to Client  X, when they would in fact do so. 

Overall, the advice provided to Client X by Mr Penney was neither suitable nor provided by CWM’s  Advisor with “integrity”, nor with “due skill, care and diligence towards its customers”; and conflicts  of interest were not managed, in contravention of Principle 1, 2 and 3 of the Principles. In this regard  Mr Penney failed to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing as described in Schedule 4 to both the  POI Law and the IMII Law in terms of fit and proper person considerations:  

• Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POI Law and paragraph 3(2)(a) of the IMII Law, “probity”, “competence”  and “soundness of judgement” in relation to unsuitable advice provided to Client X; and 

• Paragraph 1(1)(e) of the POI Law and paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IMII Law, ‘knowledge and  understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be assumed or undertaken’,  demonstrated by the multiple contraventions contained in advice provided to Client X written by  Mr Penney. 

Mr Roxby 

During the period 2014-2017, Mr Roxby was in all cases the Advisor tasked with the responsibility for  reviewing and checking Mr Penney’s advice to Client X. Mr Roxby was supposed to provide “four  eyes” review for each piece of advice Client X received as CWM’s authorised Financial Advisor (and  also as a Director, from December 2014).

There was no evidence of Mr Roxby providing any effective check or challenge to Mr Penney – he  simply signed off Mr Penney’s advice, even when there were obviously questions to be asked about the  tax position and the suitability of the advice being provided. Mr Roxby abdicated responsibility and  endorsed all of the advice given by Mr Penney, thus providing no check or challenge to Mr Penney, and  therefore did not perform his allotted function within CWM. 

Mr Roxby, by his failures in lack of care and diligence when peer reviewing Mr Penney’s advice to  Client X and his failures to challenge, correct or prevent the provision of unsuitable advice to Client X  thereby failed to adhere to Principle 1, 2 and 3 of the Principles.  Mr Roxby therefore failed to fulfil the  Minimum Criteria for Licencing as described in Schedule 4 to both the Laws in terms of fit and proper  person considerations:  

• Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POI Law and paragraph 3(2)(a) of the IMII Law “competence” and  “soundness of judgement” in relation to his failure properly to peer review and his tacit approval  of advice given by Mr Penney to Client X on behalf of CWM which was unsuitable advice; and 

• Paragraph 1(1)(e) of the POI Law and paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IMII Law, ‘knowledge and  understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be assume or undertaken’, demonstrated  by his failure properly to peer review and tacit approval of Mr Penney’s unsuitable advice to Client  X. 

The failures to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licensing by Mr Penney and Mr Roxby contributed to a  failure by CWM to meet the Minimum Criteria for Licensing in terms of the POI Law Schedule 4,  Paragraph 2(1)(b) ‘with professional skill appropriate to the nature and scale of his activities’ and  2(2)(a) ‘act in accordance with’, the Principles. Under similar provisions in the IMII Law Schedule 4  Paragraph 2(1)(b) and 1(2)(a)(ii) the behaviours of Mr Penney and Mr Roxby also contributed to CWM  Firm failing to meet the Minimum Criteria for Licencing. 

Conflicts of interest in relation to the private sale of CWM shares by Mr Penney to Client X in  January and July 2016 

Client X acquired 5% of CWM’s shares from Mr Penney for £65,000 in January 2016.  Client X paid  the £65,000 purchase monies into Mr Penney’s personal bank account.  Mr Penney personally retained  £60,000 of the £65,000 in relation to this transaction while the balance was paid to CWM.   

The updated share register was ratified at a CWM board meeting on 28 January 2016, at which Mr  Roxby was present.  This was the only reference in the minutes to the first share sale transaction between  Mr Penney and Client X. Mr Penney did not declare any conflict of interest at the board meeting in  relation to the sale of shares to Client X. 

In July 2016, Mr Penney emailed the CWM directors, including Mr Roxby, stating that Client X wished  to increase their shareholding in CWM to 10% and that he had agreed in principle to sell Client X  a  further 5% of his own shares in CWM.  Mr Penney asked for confirmation from the other directors  whether they had any objections.  Mr Roxby confirmed he had no objections.   

Client X purchased a further 5% shareholding in CWM from Mr Penney in July 2016 for £65,000.  As  with the first share sale transaction, the £65,000 was transferred by Client X to Mr Penney’s personal  bank account.  None of the £65,000 was loaned to CWM by Mr Penney.  He retained the entire sum for his personal benefit. 

Mr Penney and another director had signed off the company accounts on 20 June 2016 which showed  that, for the prior financial year, CWM was trading at a loss.  It was unlikely, therefore, that any dividend  would be paid by the end of the year, contrary to what Mr Penney had stated twice to Client X. 

Client X was at all times categorised by Mr Penney himself as a “lower risk” or “medium risk” retail  investor, and not at any stage a high risk investor.  The letters of 2 January and 19 July 2016 from Mr  Penny to Client X describing the share sale transactions are wholly inadequate in bringing to their  attention all the matters that Client X, and/or any independent financial/legal advisor, needed to know  about the transaction.   

Mr Penney ought to have set out in writing and in clear terms, at minimum, the following information:  (i) Mr Penney was acting in his personal capacity in the transaction and was not acting as Client X’s  financial advisor; (ii) Client X should take independent legal and/or financial advice on this transaction;  (iii) CWM would not receive the funds. The share purchase monies were for Mr Penney’s private  account and that he would personally profit from the sale; (iv) Mr Penney had not undertaken an  independent share valuation and Client X should have the shares valued independently; (v) CWM was  presently loss making, and there were no plans to declare a dividend during 2016; (vi) an audited set of  the latest accounts to be enclosed which should be shown to the independent advisor/s and (vii) a clear  risk warning to the effect that the purchase of the shares was a high risk investment, which could result  in 100% loss of capital since these shares were illiquid investments in a private company which was  presently loss making.  If Client X had appointed an independent legal/financial advisor, then Mr  Penney ought to have requested a signed letter from her independent advisor stating such advice had  been given before the transaction could proceed. 

Mr Penney did not act in an open and transparent manner in relation to the share sales to Client X. In  relation to both share purchase transactions, it was a situation where the onus lay on Mr Penney to give  Client X full disclosure of his conflict of interest and also of all the risks involved in the transaction and  there is no evidence that he did so. Instead, Mr Penney, even at interview, appeared to consider it was  sufficient to give Client X the opportunity to take independent legal advice.  But, to Mr Penney’s  knowledge, Client X did not take independent legal or financial advice on the transactions, and nor did  they have the full disclosure needed from Mr Penney to make an informed decision on the risks of the  transactions. In those circumstances, Mr Penney ought not to have proceeded with the transactions given  the glaring conflict of interest he faced, being both financial advisor to Client X and beneficiary,  personally, of the proceeds of the transactions. 

Client X was significantly disadvantaged by both transactions. They transferred cash/medium risk  assets into very high risk illiquid shares in a private, loss making company with no security and a high  prospect of substantial or total capital loss.  Client X did indeed lose the entire capital invested in the  shares in the sum of £130,000.  

Mr Penney could not establish that the price paid by Client X was a fair price for the shares for the  following reasons: (i) Mr Penney did not himself obtain an independent valuation of the shares; (ii) Mr  Penney’s calculation of the price of the shares was subjective, informal, undocumented and based on  assumptions as to future fees and earnings for CWM that were not reconciled with existing management  or audited accounts; on a market valuation method, the transaction for the purchase of 50 shares in  CWM from another shareholder in January 2016 was the closest and most relevant comparator but Mr  Penney had paid £500 per share to that shareholder in January 2016 and yet Mr Penney charged Client  X £1,300 per share per share for the January and July 2016 share sale transactions which raises a serious  question as to whether Mr Penney was charging Client X a fair price for the shares; and on a multiples  method of valuation, there was no contemporaneous documentation (ie, at the time of the share sales  transaction) or independent valuation advice to support the valuation Mr Penney arrived at.  

The sale of CWM’s shares by Mr Penney to Client X in January and July 2016 demonstrates the failure of CWM and its Directors to identify, mitigate and manage the serious conflict of interest. The fact that  Mr Penney sold CWM’s shares to Client X at a price he cannot establish on the evidence as fair, and  that he personally profited from the sale proceeds without full disclosure to Client X (and/or insisting  that they took independent advice) was improper and aggravates the breaches on the part of Mr Penney.   This demonstrated a lack of personal probity by Mr Penney.  Together these matters demonstrate that  Mr Penney acted with a lack of probity, competence and soundness of judgement, and evidence his  failure to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing under the Regulatory Laws. 

CWM had an opportunity to prevent Mr Penney selling CWM’s shares to Client X when Mr Penney  discussed the January share sale in advance with Mr Roxby. Mr Roxby and Mr Penney did not tell  CWM’s other director about the January 2016 sale.  The consequence of Mr Penney’s and Mr Roxby’s  failures meant the conflict of interest was neither identified nor managed adequately by CWM. 

By his lack of care and diligence, and failures to avoid and manage conflicts of interest, Mr Penney  failed to ensure CWM adhered to the Principles 1, 2 and 3.  Mr Penney failed to fulfil the Minimum  Criteria for Licencing as described in Schedule 4 to both the Laws in terms of fit and proper person  considerations:  

• Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(a) of the IMII Law, ‘probity’, ‘competence’  and ‘soundness of judgement’ in relation to the sale of his shares in CWM to Client X; 

• Paragraph 1(1)(e) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IMII Law, ‘knowledge and  understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be assumed or undertaken’,  demonstrated by the private share sale to Client X despite the conflict of interests; and 

• Paragraph 2(c)(i) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(3)(c)(i) of the IMII Law ‘engaged in a business practice’ that ‘appears to the Commission to be deceitful or oppressive or otherwise improper’. 

Mr Roxby, by his lack of care and diligence, and failures to prevent and manage conflicts of interest,  failed to ensure CWM adhered to Principles 1, 2 and 3 of the Principles.  Mr Roxby failed to fulfil the  Minimum Criteria for Licencing as described in Schedule 4 to both the Laws in terms of fit and proper  person considerations:  

• Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(a) of the IMII Law, ‘competence’ and  ‘soundness of judgement’ in relation to his failure to raise questions and concerns in relation to the  sale of CWM’s shares to Client X; and 

• Paragraph 1(1)(e) of the POI Law and Paragraph 3(2)(e) of the IMII Law, ‘knowledge and  understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be assumed or undertaken’,  demonstrated by his lack of challenge to, and tacit approval of, the private share sale to Client X  and the resultant unmitigated conflict of interest.  Mr Roxby did not think to intervene in the share  sale transactions, despite the fact that Mr Roxby had overseen the recommendation letters and  correspondence between Mr Penney and Client X for two years in his role as peer reviewer, and  therefore understood how Mr Penney was a trusted advisor to Client X. 

The contraventions set out above demonstrate CWM’s failure in terms of Principles 1, 2 and 3.  These  breaches also represent a failure by CWM to meet the Minimum Criteria for Licensing in terms of the  POI Law, Schedule 4 paragraph 1(1)(g) and the IMII Law, Schedule 4 paragraph 3(2)(g), ‘policies  procedures and controls to comply with any rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions’. 

CWM’s Records were insufficient in many cases to show the provision of suitable advice to other  clients 

Analysis of CWM’s investment surrender log and some sample examples of written advice provided to  clients other than Client X demonstrated patterns of switching, underpinned by generic reasoning that  failed to document sufficiently, or at all, in the following three areas: (i) the reasons for the  recommended investment switches; and/or (ii) the costs savings or other advantages that would accrue  to the client from the switching; and/or (iii) the costs of the proposed new investments. 

The repeated similar justifications for product surrender and reinvestment in 2016 and further repeated  wording in 2017 suggest that the recommendations to clients were not sufficiently personalised but that  CWM’s financial advisors adopted formulaic or generic standard templates. The advisors to the clients  included Mr Penney and Mr Roxby.  CWM by its advisors frequently did not fully document to the  clients how much the alleged “cost savings” added up to, and how those cost savings justified the  recommendation to switch.  CWM and its advisors, including Mr Penney and Mr Roxby, ought to have  documented this clearly and set out a comparison between the costs under the existing investment and  the costs under the recommended new investment in order to assist clients to decide whether to accept  his recommendations.  CWM’s records were therefore in several cases, in addition to Client X,  insufficient to demonstrate and fully document that the surrender was in the clients’ best interests. 

Finally, to the extent that any of the CWM clients were recommended Structured Notes, the same issues  arose in relation to a failure on the part of CWM, and its Advisors, to warn of the significant risks of  loss of capital, a failure to document the high risk rating for Structured Notes, and a failure to establish  suitability, and/or to document appropriately why these recommendations were in the best interests of each client. 

The contraventions outlined above demonstrate CWM’s failure to adhere to Principle 2, ‘A licensee  should act with due skill, care and diligence towards its customers and counterparties.  

The breaches also constitute a failure by CWM to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing in terms of  the POI Law, Paragraph 1(1)(b) ‘diligence’ and Paragraph 1(1)(g) ‘polices procedures and controls to  comply with any rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions’. In addition, the same  contraventions represent similar failures under the IMII Law to fulfil the Minimum Criteria for  Licencing with particular regard to, Paragraph 1(1)(b) ‘professional skill appropriate to the nature and  scale of his activities’ and Paragraph 2(a) ‘act in accordance with’,  ‘(i) the Principles of Conduct of  Finance Business’ and ‘(ii) any rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions issued from time to  time under this law’. 

By their failures to observe high standards of integrity and act with due skill, care and diligence in relation to the matters set out above, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby (until July 2015), failed to ensure CWM  adhered to the Licensee Rules, the Code of Conduct for Authorised Insurance Representatives (until 31  December 2014), the Code of Conduct for Financial Advisors (from 1 January 2015), and Principle 2  of the Principles.  Therefore, CWM failed to fulfil the requirement of the Minimum Criteria for  Licencing in terms of the POI Law Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(1)(b) ‘with professional skill appropriate  to the nature and scale of his activities’ and 2(2)(a) ‘act in accordance with’ the Principles. Under  similar provisions in the IMII Law Schedule 4 Paragraphs 1(1)(b) and 1(2)(a)(i) CWM also failed to  fulfil the Minimum Criteria for Licencing. 

Aggravating Factors 

Other than the complaint from Client X and the complaints of Structured Notes holders, none of the  matters comprising breaches set out above were brought to the attention of the Commission. 

In relation to the advice given by CWM, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby and the failures to document reasons  for recommendations and failures to disclose remuneration, CWM has a poor regulatory history as far  back as the first Commission visit in 2013, and again highlighted by the Commission’s visit of 2016.   

The failure to take legal advice in relation to the nature of the Structured Notes and the consequent  conduct of unlicensed business in selling approximately 200 Structured Notes to clients has resulted, in  some cases, in uninsured losses for clients. 

Mr Penney’s advice to Client X, an elderly client, resulted in a significant tax bill for Client X, as well as significant commission income for CWM.  The commission from restructuring Client X’s insurance bonds generated 15-20% of CWM’s income for 2014. 

In relation to the share sales to Client X, Mr Penney engaged in very deliberate improper conduct,  profiting to the sum of over £100,000. 

Mr Roxby failed to provide any check or challenge to Mr Penney in relation to the failures relating to Client X and this meant that he provided no protection to Client X in relation to very serious failures and contraventions by CWM and Mr Penney. 

Mitigating Factors 

CWM appointed a third party consultant to assist with remediation following the 2016 Visit.  Thereafter,  CWM completed a remediation plan to the satisfaction of the Commission.  The remediation improved  CWM’s compliance with regulatory requirements.   

In relation to the conflicts of interest regarding the sale of shares to Client X, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby  admitted during the Investigation that the conflicts of interest policies at CWM were inadequate and  that they did not manage the conflicts of interest as they were obliged to.  CWM subsequently revised  its conflicts of interest policy and amended its articles to prevent the sale of shares to its clients. 

Mr Roxby did not make any personal gain from the sale of shares to Client X.   

Following the Commission’s letter of July 2015, Mr Roxby appears to have taken into account the  Commission’s comments in his advice to clients. 

CWM, Mr Penney and Mr Roxby co-operated with the investigation.

Louvre Fund Services Limited, Kevin Gilligan, Charles Peter Gervais Tracy, Derek Paul Baudains, Julian Dai Lane

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (“the Financial Services Commission Law”); 

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”); 

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”); 

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”); 

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the “Banking Law”) and

The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Business Law”) (together “the Regulatory Laws”). 

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”); 

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”); 

The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business (the “Principles”); 

The Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules 2009, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (the “COB Rules”);  

The Registered Collective Investment Scheme Rules 2008, 2015 and 2018 (the “RCIS Rules”); 

The Principles of the Code of Corporate Governance 2011, 2014 and 2016 (the “Code of Corporate Governance”); 

The Code of Practice – Corporate Service Providers 2009 (the “CSP Code”); and 

The Code of Practice – Company Directors 2009 (the “Directors Code”) (together “the Regulatory Requirements”).  

Louvre Fund Services Limited, (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”) 

Mr Kevin Gilligan (“Mr Gilligan”) 

Mr Charles Peter Gervais Tracy (“Mr Tracy”) 

Mr Derek Paul Baudains (“Mr Baudains”) 

Mr Julian Dai Lane (“Mr Lane”)   (together “the Directors”) 

On 17 February 2020, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided: 

• To impose a financial penalty of £77,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee;  

• To impose a financial penalty of £52,500 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Gilligan; 

• To impose a financial penalty of £31,500 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Tracy;  

• To impose a financial penalty of £28,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Baudains;  

• To impose a financial penalty of £14,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Lane; 

• To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Gilligan from performing the functions of director, controller, partner or manager of a regulated entity under any of the  Regulatory Laws for a period of 6 years and 2 months from the date of this public  statement; 

• To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Tracy from performing the  functions of director, controller, partner or manager of a regulated entity under any of the  Regulatory Laws for a period of 3 years and 6 months from the date of this public  statement; 

• To disapply the exemption set out in Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of  Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy for periods of 6 years and 2 months; and 3 years and 6 months  respectively from the date of this public statement; and 

• To make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law. 

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee and the Directors had failed to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Requirements, and the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law and Schedule 4 of the POI Law. 

BACKGROUND 

In 2000, the Licensee was established in Guernsey and holds licenses for Category 1 and Category 2 controlled investments prescribed under the POI Law; and undertakes fiduciary activities under a full fiduciary license.  

The Licensee’s primary regulated activity is the establishment and administration of investment funds.  The Licensee would, as part of their administration services provide, on occasions, directors of the Licensee to sit on the boards of specific Funds / Companies or their Investment Advisers.  

Mr Gilligan has been a director of the Licensee since August 2008 and Managing Director since January 2011.   

Mr Tracy was a director and the compliance officer of the Licensee between August 2003 and December 2016. 

Mr Baudains has been a director of the Licensee since July 2000. 

Mr Lane has been a director of the Licensee since October 2011 and was the MLRO between February 2012 and March 2017. 

The Commission’s investigation into the Licensee commenced in 2017; and as part of this investigation, Oben Regulatory Limited was appointed as inspectors. 

FINDINGS 

The Commission’s investigation found: 

The Licensee failed to administer certain funds in accordance with the Principal Documents and Information Particulars 

The Licensee administered a Registered Collective Investment Scheme, involving assets (natural resources) that were not familiar to them, and which were located outside of the Bailiwick (“Scheme A”).  

The Commission expects a Licensee performing the function of designated administrator to operate such a scheme in accordance with The Registered Collective Investment Scheme Rules 2008, 2015 and 2018 (the “RCIS Rules”).   

Rule 3.01(1) of the RCIS Rules requires a designated administrator to administer the scheme in accordance with the Principal Documents and the most recently published Information Particulars. 

On a wider basis, the Commission expects a Licensee to understand and comply with its contractual and other legal obligations, as required under Principle 6 of the Code of Corporate Governance; and the Directors to operate in accordance with all relevant legislation, as required under Principle 2.1 of the Code of Corporate Governance. 

Example 1 

Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy were directors on the board of Scheme A. Mr Gilligan was appointed on 7 October 2010 and Mr Tracy on 22 May 2013. 

The Commission expected that these appointments should have enabled the Licensee to gain a greater oversight of the scheme it was administering.  However, the Commission noted during its investigation that neither the Licensee, nor Mr Gilligan, nor Mr Tracy were able to demonstrate: 

• Satisfactory documentary proof of ownership for the assets of the scheme;

• The exact location of all of these assets; or

• Satisfactory documentary proof of the exact number of assets acquired. 

The Commission determined that the information gaps mentioned above resulted from the fact that reports from the investment adviser were predominantly verbal and often lacking in granular detail; and as such, the flow of information necessary to properly administer the scheme was insufficient. 

Therefore, the Licensee was unable to consistently value the assets in accordance with the Principal Documents and Information Particulars. 

Example 2 

The Licensee also administered an Authorised Collective Investment Scheme, of which one of its cells held assets that were not familiar to them (“Scheme B”).  These assets were natural resources of high-value, the specialist trade in which requires careful scrutiny, in particular, regarding the provenance of assets. 

Mr Gilligan was a director of the investment manager of Scheme B from 4 March 2014 to 5 January 2017 (inclusive), and Mr Tracy and Mr Baudains were directors on the board of Scheme B, in Mr Tracy's case from 14 March 2014 to 19 October 2016 (inclusive); and in Mr Baudains' case from 14 March 2014 to 14 December 2016 (inclusive). 

The Commission’s investigation identified serious compliance failings in respect of Scheme B, and these are described in more detail below.  However, in the context of acting in accordance with Principal Documents, the Commission noted that despite the requirement for enhanced vigilance to be undertaken in this case, neither the Licensee, nor the appointed Directors were ever able to fully establish the provenance of these high-value assets. 

The inability to satisfy the provenance of the assets constituted a breach of the Principal Documents. 

The Licensee failed to abide, at times, with contractual and legal obligations 

The Commission expects Licensees to abide by Principle 6 of the Code of Corporate Governance, which requires a Licensee to (i) understand and comply with its contractual and other legal obligations; and (ii) keep and preserve appropriate records, including accounting records. 

Example 1 

The Licensee administered two companies (“Company C” and “Company D”) whose purpose was to generate income through the acquisition of natural products in a number of foreign countries for onward sale, funded by the issue of loan notes listed on a recognised stock exchange. 

Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy were appointed to the board of directors of both Company C and Company D in January 2013.  

The Licensee was obligated under an administration agreement to oversee the payment of funds raised through the issuance of loan notes, via Companies C and D, to specified overseas companies, who would then acquire assets on their (Company C and Company D) behalf. 

However, the Licensee on three occasions authorised the payments of funds to an overseas company, which had no contractual obligations with either Company C or Company D.  This contravened the Licensee’s contractual and legal obligations. 

The Licensee was obligated under an administration agreement, and in accordance with Principle 6, to keep adequate books and records to account for the purchase of assets.   

However, the Commission’s investigation identified that the Licensee failed to obtain adequate documentation (i.e. invoices) to confirm the purchase of any assets. 

The Licensee failed to adequately identify and manage conflicts of interests 

The Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules 2009, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (the “COB Rules”) apply to investment Licensees conducting, amongst other roles, administration. 

Rule 11.1.1 of the COB Rules requires a Licensee to establish, implement and maintain an effective conflicts of interest policy. 

Principle 3.3 of the Code of Corporate Governance stipulates that: “Any transactions between the company and it is Board members should take place at arms’ length or be disclosed in detail at a Board meeting before the Board considers the transaction.” 

Example 1 

The Licensee had properly recorded that a number of directors (including those of the Licensee) of Scheme A sat on either the board of the scheme, the board of the Investment Adviser or the board of a further specialist Investment Adviser, specific to the asset class in question. 

The Licensee had properly recorded that one overseas director (“Person A”) sat on the boards of Scheme A, the Investment Adviser and a further specialist Investment Adviser.  The Licensee was also aware, and had recorded, that Person A sat on the board of his own non-local holding company, designed to hold the assets in question. 

The Commission’s investigation determined that whilst the Licensee did have a conflicts of interest policy, it was not effective, as it failed to introduce measures to counter, the influence Person A’s multiple linked directorships provided him. 

The investigation noted that on one occasion Person A sold to the Scheme his own assets (purchased previously by Person A using his own separate company), without an independent valuation and without the prior formal approval of the board of Scheme A.   These assets would form the majority of the assets purchased by the scheme. 

As detailed earlier, due to issues with the documentary proof of ownerships, these assets have not, to date, been sold. 

Example 2 

The Commission identified that a number directors (including those of the Licensee) sat on the boards of Company C and Company D.  The Commission noted that one overseas director (Person A from Scheme A), sat on the boards of Company C, Company D, but also on the board of the investment adviser to Company D. 

The Commission was not satisfied during its investigation that the Licensee fully understood the extent of these conflicts; and whilst some measures were in place to try and mitigate Person A’s multiple conflicts, the Commission determined these to be ineffective. 

The Commission noted that Person A was directly involved in the purchase of assets, but provided only verbal reports regarding these purchases, and not the sufficient documentary proof of purchase the Commission would have expected. 

The Licensee failed to obtain adequate client due diligence and enhanced due diligence in relation to its book of business 

All Licensees have to abide by The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations (the “Regulations”) and the accompanying Handbook. 

Regulation 4 relates to Customer Due Diligence.  This stipulates what CDD measures should be applied, when they should be applied and to whom they should be applied.

Regulation 5 relates to Enhanced Due Diligence.  This stipulates what enhanced EDD measures should be undertaken in respect of business relationships and occasional transactions, which are identified as high risk.  These measures include carrying out more frequent and more extensive ongoing monitoring. 

Regulation 15 relates to ensuring compliance with the Regulations.  This stipulates that a firm must establish such other policies, procedures and controls as may be appropriate and effective for the purpose of forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing; and that the board must take responsibility for reviewing this compliance. 

Principle 3 of the CSP Code stipulates that a fiduciary licensee must comply with the Regulations. 

Example 1 

As detailed above, the Licensee administered a scheme referred to as Scheme B; Mr Gilligan was a director of the investment manager of Scheme B, and Mr Tracy and Mr Baudains were directors on the board of Scheme B. 

The assets of one of the cells of Scheme B included natural resources of high-value, requiring specialist expertise in the trade of these assets. 

These assets were acquired for the scheme by a person (“Person B”) described as an expert dealer in relation to this asset class.  It was known by the Licensee, and the relevant directors, that Person B had acquired the assets from his own company, and was therefore buying and selling his own assets. 

The Commission noted that concerns were raised with Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy from the outset regarding the unusually cyclical nature of the transaction; the lack of documentary detail regarding Person B’s professional background in this specialist trade area; and the lack of a satisfactory rationale regarding the provenance of the assets. 

Regulation 4(3)(b) states that: “any person purporting to act on behalf of the customer shall be identified and his identity and his authority to so act shall be verified.” 

The Commission’s investigation determined that the Licensee, and the relevant directors, did identify Person B and did instruct further open source research to be conducted.  However, crucial red flags regarding Person B were either missed or not properly recognised.  These included: 

• Person B was not the same person as the person open source research had been conducted on; and 

• No documentary proof was obtained to verify Person B’s expertise in the specialist trade area. 

Example 2 

The Licensee, as part of its own initiative to improve its procedures regarding client due diligence, identified in March 2018 that it held incomplete client due diligence for approximately 64% of its investors at that time. 

The Licensee failed, at times, to effectively monitor business relationships and transactions 

Regulation 11 relates to the ongoing monitoring of customers.  This stipulates that identification data for high-risk relationships or customers should be reviewed on an ongoing basis; and scrutiny should be made of transactions, in particular those that appear unusual. 

Example 1 

The Licensee failed to monitor Scheme A effectively as they were, at times: 

• Unaware when assets had been purchased; 

• Did not obtain satisfactory evidence of the purchase of all assets; and 

• Placed an over reliance on verbal reporting from non-locally based board directors. 

Example 2 

The Licensee failed to monitor Company C and Company D effectively as they: 

• Released funds to an overseas company which was not listed as a counter-party on any agreement; 

• Failed to obtain any invoices for the purchase of assets; and 

• Placed an over reliance on verbal reporting from non-locally based board directors. 

Example 3 

The Licensee failed to monitor Scheme B effectively as they: 

• Did not adequately document the rationale for an unusual transaction involving assets with high-risk characteristics being bought and sold from the same person; and 

• Did not adequately determine the provenance of the assets mentioned above. 

The Commission noted that whilst the Licensee did engage a third party compliance consultant to review the transaction, they failed to act on a number of recommendations they made regarding further due diligence that should have been obtained. 

The Licensee failed, at times, to ensure proper books and records were kept and that these were readily retrievable 

Regulation 14 stipulates that a financial service business must keep a transaction document and any due diligence information. 

Principles 3 and 6 of the CSP Code stipulate that a Licensee should keep appropriate records and comply with the Regulations and the Rules. 

Principle 9 of the Principles stipulates that a financial institution should organise and control its internal affairs in a responsible manner, keeping proper records. 

Example 1   

The Licensee failed to obtain satisfactory ownership records in relation to Scheme A; and failed to obtain satisfactory purchase records in relation to Company C and Company D. 

The Licensee failed, at times, to exercise effective policies, procedures and controls for forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing 

Regulation 15 relates to ensuring compliance with the Regulations.  This stipulates that a firm must establish such other policies, procedures and controls as may be appropriate and effective for the purpose of forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing; and that the board must take responsibility for reviewing this compliance. 

Principle 3 of the CSP Code stipulates that a fiduciary licensee must comply with the Regulations. 

Example 1 

The Licensee engaged a third party compliance consultant on 13 May 2016 to review their policies, procedures and controls.  The resulting compliance report identified that the Licensee had a number of areas, which were considered by the consultant to be inadequate.  These included inadequate procedures relating to: relationship risk assessments, enhanced due diligence and periodic risk reviews. 

These failings were considered by the Commission to have weakened the Licensee’s ability to combat fully the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.    

The Directors failed, at times, to adhere to a director’s fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of a company 

In accordance with common law practice and Principle 3.4 of the Code of Corporate Governance, directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of a company. 

Example 1 

Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy were found not to have acted in the best interest of Scheme A, as they failed to ensure that the purchase of assets from Person A was conducted on an arm’s length basis; and they placed too great a reliance on verbal information supplied to them, rather than obtaining satisfactory documentary proof that the scheme was operating as expected. 

Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy were found not to have acted in the best interest of Company C and Company D, as they failed to obtain adequate documentary proof that assets purchased were made at fair market prices, based on independent evaluations. 

Mr Gilligan 

Mr Gilligan, as well as being a director of the Licensee, was a director, at various times, on the boards of Scheme A, Company C and Company D, as well as various other entities connected to these schemes / companies. 

Mr Gilligan was therefore well placed to benefit from first-hand access, not only to information necessary for the running of these entities, but also from contact with the other directors of these entities. 

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Gilligan failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence; or with the knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.   

For example, Mr Gilligan: 

• Failed to ensure that the policies and procedures of the Licensee were adequate, particularly with regards to client due diligence; 

• Did not ensure that assets purchased in relation to Scheme A had satisfactory proof of ownership; 

• Did not properly manage, on an ongoing basis, the numerous conflicts surrounding Person A and the actual impact this had on the scheme: i.e.  regarding the purchase of assets from Person A without an independent valuation; 

• Did not sufficiently challenge the preference for verbal reporting regarding Scheme A and Company C and Company D; 

• Permitted monies linked to Company C and Company D to be transferred to a company with no contractual links; 

• Permitted purchases of assets in relation to Company C and Company D without obtaining sufficient proof, such as invoices; and 

• Did not properly address the concerns that arose out of the purchase of high risk assets in relation to Scheme B and failed to ensure that common-sense due diligence checks were conducted. 

Mr Tracy 

Mr Tracy, as well as being a director of the Licensee, was a director, at various times, on the boards of Scheme A, Scheme B, Company C and Company D, as well as various other entities connected to these schemes / companies. 

Mr Tracy was therefore well placed to benefit from first-hand access, not only to information necessary for the running of these entities, but also from contact with the other directors of these entities. 

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Tracy failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence; or with the knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.   

For example, Mr Tracy: 

• Failed to ensure that the policies and procedures of the Licensee were adequate, particularly with regards to client due diligence; 

• Did not ensure that assets purchased in relation to Scheme A had satisfactory proof of  ownership; 

• Did not properly manage, on an ongoing basis, the numerous conflicts surrounding Person A and the actual impact this had on the scheme: i.e.  regarding the purchase of assets from Person A without an independent valuation; 

• Did not sufficiently challenge the preference for verbal reporting regarding Scheme A and Company C and Company D; 

• Did not sufficiently address concerns regarding the lack of sufficient proof of purchases, (such as invoices), of assets in relation to Company C and Company D; and 

• Did not properly address the concerns that arose out of the purchase of high risk assets in relation to Scheme B and failed to ensure that common-sense due diligence checks were conducted. 

Mr Baudains 

Mr Baudains, as well as being a director of the Licensee, was a director, at various times, on the boards of Scheme B. 

Mr Baudains was therefore well placed to benefit from first-hand access, not only to information necessary for the running of the scheme, but also from contact with the other directors of these entities. 

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Baudains failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence; or with the knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.   

For example, Mr Baudains: 

• Failed to ensure that the policies and procedures of the Licensee were adequate, particularly with regards to client due diligence; and 

• Did not properly address the concerns that arose out of the purchase of high risk assets in relation to Scheme B and failed to ensure that common-sense due diligence checks were conducted. 

Mr Lane 

Mr Lane was a director of the Licensee, but did not sit on the boards of the entities investigated by the Commission.  This position is reflected in the level of financial penalty imposed. 

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Lane failed to demonstrate that he acted with competence, soundness of judgement, diligence; or with the knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.   

The Commission found that Mr Lane failed to ensure that the policies and procedures of the Licensee were adequate, particularly with regards to client due diligence. 

Aggravating factors 

The contraventions and non-fulfilments of the Licensee and the Directors in this case are serious as they have had a detrimental effect on certain clients and those invested in these clients, and have exposed the Firm and the Bailiwick to a significant risk of reputational damage.   

Under its administration, the board requested the suspension of Scheme A, which became effective in March 2014 and Company C and Company D were placed into voluntary liquidation in February 2017.  

The Licensee and the Directors’ failure to ensure that it had adequate policies, procedures and controls in place, as required by regulation, resulting in the Firm being vulnerable to the threat of money laundering and terrorist financing.  

Mitigating factors 

The Licensee initiated a comprehensive review of all of its procedures, before the Commission's investigation commenced.  This identified the need to undertake an extensive remediation programme, requiring the significant input of the Licensee and the directors. 

This remediation was determined by the Licensee to have been completed in 2019, and an independent assurance evaluation has confirmed this to the satisfaction of the Commission. A review by the Commission of the Licensee's board and committee minutes from October 2016 to June 2019 has also shown a marked improvement in the way that risks to the business are detailed and mitigated.    

It is accepted that the majority of the conduct described in this statement predates the Licensee's self-imposed remediation programme and is regarded as historic. 

At all times the Licensee and the Directors co-operated fully with the Commission and the inspectors.  The Licensee and the Directors agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties and prohibitions. 

Certes Capital Limited (formerly Marlborough Pension Trustees Limited) (“Certes”)

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 ("the Financial Services Commission Law")

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 ("the Fiduciaries Law")

Certes Capital Limited (formerly Marlborough Pension Trustees Limited) ("Certes")

On 18 October 2019, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided to make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law in relation to Certes.

Certes is in voluntary liquidation, and the liquidators have confirmed that Certes is insolvent, and it is doubtful whether funds will remain for any significant dividend for creditors; but for that fact the Commission would have imposed a financial penalty in the sum of £30,000 upon Certes under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law. Any financial penalty imposed by the Commission therefore, would have adversely affected creditors or potential creditors of Certes.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Certes did not fulfil the requirements of the Minimum Criteria for Licensing, pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law, in particular in relation to the fit and proper criteria (paragraph 3) and integrity and skill criteria (paragraph 1), whilst it was licensed by the Commission.

In particular, with reference to Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law, failings have been found in relation to:

1. Competence and soundness of judgement: paragraph 3(2)(a);

2. Compliance with rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions issued by the Commission: paragraph 1(2)(b).

BACKGROUND

At the relevant time, Certes was licensed by the Commission under the Fiduciaries Law. Certes provided pension and savings solutions to both individual and corporate clients.

In October 2016, Certes became a managed trust company of another licensee under the Fiduciaries Law (Licensee A). Licensee A commissioned a review of investments held by pension schemes administered by Certes, which raised a number of concerns, that arose during the period from August 2009 until October 2016. The concerns centred around pension scheme members, introduced by one introducer, who were mainly former UK military personnel and who had transferred their UK Government defined benefit pension scheme to a defined contribution pension scheme administered by Certes. Certes, at the prompting of Licensee A, reported these concerns to the Commission in May 2017.

FINDINGS

Appointment of Investment Managers

The pension scheme’s trust deed set out that the trustees (ie Certes) may appoint one or more persons whom they consider to be suitably qualified and competent to manage the investment of any part or all of the pension fund to act as Investment Manager.

Certes appointed the introducer as the Investment Manager for the scheme members’ accounts. A Certes file note records that the introducer was not regulated. The file note also notes that the introducer has considerable UK pension experience. However, there was little evidence to corroborate this statement. Given that Certes was aware that the introducer was not regulated, it is not clear, on the evidence that was provided to the Commission, how Certes reached the conclusion that the introducer was suitably qualified and competent to be appointed as Investment Manager.

Certes subsequently removed the introducer as Investment Manager for scheme members’ accounts. The Commission was informed that the introducer was not performing in a sufficient way as Investment Manager and Certes felt it needed to appoint a qualified investment house.

The introducer was replaced as Investment Manager with an Isle of Man regulated investment management firm. However, Certes’ records show that this appointment was made on the recommendation of the introducer. There was no evidence to demonstrate whether any compliance checks or due diligence was undertaken in respect of the new Investment Manager, except to note that it was a regulated Isle of Man investment firm.

Certes failed to demonstrate that appropriate consideration, or investigation was undertaken, in respect of the new Investment Manager’s qualifications and competence. Certes appeared to have accepted their suggested appointment entirely on the recommendation of the introducer.

Certes failed to show sufficient competence, experience and soundness of judgement, as required by paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law by failing to ensure that the introducer and the Investment Managers were competent and suitably qualified.

Due Diligence

Certes accepted the introducer on 5 August 2009 and this was communicated to the introducer. However, Certes’ internal due diligence approval form for the introducer was not completed by Certes until 13 August 2009, it was not signed off by the compliance officer until 26 November 2009 and senior management until 30 November 2009.

The due diligence forms and compliance checks on the introducer had not been completed prior to the acceptance of the introducer and were still being completed after it had been accepted.

Certes failed to show sufficient competence, experience and soundness of judgement, as required by paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law by accepting the introducer prior to completing its due diligence checks.

Failure during client take on

The introducer was not a regulated entity, although there was no requirement for it to be regulated in its home country. As part of the acceptance of the introducer, Certes requested that clear pension transfer advice be provided on each case. Given the introducer was unregulated, this was a method by which Certes could assure itself of the introducer’s suitability and competence.

However, Certes only received and viewed the first few reports of pension advice, but as the advice was all very similar Certes felt that there was no need to continue to see the advice being provided by the introducer. Certes was unable to adequately explain how it satisfied itself that it was in each member’s best interest to transfer to the Certes managed pension scheme, from a UK Government defined benefit scheme, given that each member’s position would be different.

Certes was unable to provide copies of any pension transfer advice that it received when requested by the Commission. Certes subsequently explained to the Commission that it was not party to the pension transfer advice and that the discussions in respect of the transfer took place between the introducer and the member. This suggests that Certes did not see the pension transfer advice at all.

Certes failed to show sufficient competence, experience and soundness of judgement, as required by paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law by failing to monitor the pension transfer advice, even where it had been identified that Certes should receive and review the advice so as to satisfy themselves that the introducer was competent.

Oversight of Investments

Certes provided annual valuations of its pension funds to its members. However, following a review carried out by an independent third party in 2017, the independent third party noted that the valuations may not have given an accurate reflection of the investments, due to the fact that a number of funds were suspended. The suspended funds had been given a full market value and not all assets had been revalued on a regular basis. Accordingly, the annual valuations were potentially misleading and suggestive that the investments were performing better than they were.

Certes appointed the independent third party to perform reviews of investments in 2012 and 2017. The review of client files showed, in many instances, that the underlying investments appeared to be in high risk investments, despite most members requesting a low or medium risk strategy.

Certes therefore failed to ensure that the investments were managed professionally, and responsibly, as required by section 4 of the Code of Practice – Trust Service Providers. In addition, this demonstrates Certes’ failure to show sufficient competence, experience and soundness of judgement, as required by paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law.

Aggravating Factors

Certes has received a number of complaints from the former members of the UK Government pension schemes about the performance of their pension.

Mitigating Factors

Certes made minor efforts to rectify the issues identified, although they did not take sufficient steps to effectively remedy the issues.

Certes was open and co-operative with the Commission and has assisted with its enquiries. In addition, Certes brought the matters to the attention of the Commission

Mr Bruce David McNaught

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended (“the Financial Services Commission Law”);

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended (the “Fiduciaries Law”);

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended (the “POI Law”);

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended (the “IMII Law”);

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994, as amended (the “Banking Supervision Law”); and 

The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended (the “Insurance Business Law”) (together “the Regulatory Laws”)

Mr Bruce David McNaught (“Mr McNaught”) - Born: 10 September 1961

On 8th June 2018, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

• to impose a financial penalty of £13,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr McNaught;

• to make orders under section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law, section 18A of the IMII Law, section 28A of the Insurance Business Law, section 17A of the Banking Supervision Law, and section 34E of the POI Law, prohibiting Mr McNaught from: (i) holding the position of director, controller, partner, manager, financial adviser, general representative or authorised insurance representative (as applicable); and (ii) acting as Money Laundering Reporting Officer (“MLRO”) or Compliance Officer, within a person licensed under any of the Regulatory Laws, for a period of 4 years;

• to disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr McNaught for a period of 4 years; and

• to issue a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

On 9th August 2019, the Commission decided that the public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law would be issued in the current form.

The Commission considered it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr McNaught failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing (and in particular was not a fit and proper person to hold the positions of director, controller, partner or manager of an applicant or licensed fiduciary) under Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law (and also was not a fit and proper person in terms of Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Supervision Law, and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law, which set out the minimum criteria under these Laws).

BACKGROUND

Mr McNaught became a Non-Executive Director of a Guernsey entity licensed under the Fiduciaries Law (“the Licensee”) in June 2000, and was then employed by the Licensee as an Executive Director in May 2010. In 2013, he became a controller of the Licensee, and in 2014, MLRO.

As part of his terms and conditions of employment with the Licensee, among other things, Mr McNaught was not permitted to accept any other work, or have any interest in any other business or occupation, without the express permission of the Licensee.

In February 2010, Mr McNaught had established Candie Accounting (which after a time, also used “The Guernsey Accountants” as an alternative trading name).  He considered himself to be the proprietor/principal of that entity.  Candie Accounting was registered as a Prescribed Business in October 2014, with Mr McNaught as the MLRO.

In the period from May 2012 to February 2016, Mr McNaught incorporated 12 Guernsey registered companies for clients of Candie Accounting. However, in each instance, Mr McNaught made use of the Licensee’s registration with the Guernsey Registry (i.e., he used the Licensee’s online log-in details) in order to carry out the company incorporation.  Whilst Mr McNaught did carry out due diligence with respect to these various Candie Accounting clients (and later provided copies of that paperwork to the Commission), the material was held by Mr McNaught at his house.

In February 2016, the Licensee commenced a disciplinary investigation into Mr McNaught, with regard to his Candie Accounting business. During this process, in April 2016, Mr McNaught tendered his written resignation from the Licensee.

In March 2016, Mr McNaught had contacted the Commission. He indicated that he had occasionally incorporated a Guernsey company for clients of Candie Accounting, and had invoiced for that service through Candie Accounting rather than the Licensee. He thought that he might be in breach of the Prescribed Business Regulations, for which he apologised, and asked what the Commission wished done.  Mr McNaught also indicated that an exchange of emails with the Guernsey Registry earlier that month had led him to realise that he may be in breach of the Regulations. Company formation is a regulated activity that may only be carried out by the holder of a full fiduciary licence.

The Commission’s investigation focussed on:

• whether Mr McNaught contravened the Fiduciaries Law by (i) incorporating companies for clients of Candie Accounting, so that he conducted (by way of business) the regulated business of company administration without the appropriate license under the Fiduciaries Law; and (ii) offering to carry out company formation service (by way of business) without having the appropriate licence; and

• whether Mr McNaught fulfilled the minimum criteria for licensing, and in particular whether he was a fit and proper person to hold the positions of director, controller, partner or manager of an applicant or licensed fiduciary, under Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law (and also whether he was a fit and proper person in terms of Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Supervision Law, and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law).

FINDINGS

The Commission found that Mr McNaught failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing in the Fiduciaries Law, and in particular that he is not a fit and proper person in terms of each of: (i) the Fiduciaries Law; (ii) the IMII Law; (iii) the Insurance Business Law; (iv) the Banking Supervision Law; and (v) the POI Law.

Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law sets out the minimum criteria for licensing, with regard to that legislation.  These require, for example (and in broad terms):

- the carrying on of a licensed business with prudence and integrity; with appropriate professional skill; and in a manner which will not tend to bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international financial centre (Sch 1, para 1(1)).

- in conducting licensed business, acting in accordance with the Commission’s rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions (and any other applicable enactment) (Sch 1, para 1(2)).

- key individuals involved with licensed businesses being ‘fit and proper’ persons (Sch 1, para 3). In determining this, regard must be had to a number of matters, which include:  probity, competence, experience and soundness of judgement; and knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations.  Regard may be had to previous conduct and activities, in particular any evidence of (amongst other things):  (i) contraventions of the Fiduciaries Law; (ii) engagement in business practices which are improper or reflect discredit on his method of conducting business or his suitability to carry on regulated activities; and (iii) engagement in business practices, or conduct, which casts doubt on competence and soundness of judgment.

The Commission found that when Mr McNaught incorporated the 12 companies for clients of Candie Accounting, he was doing so as the principal of Candie Accounting. It was an activity regulated by the Fiduciaries Law and carried on by him by way of business - and accordingly he required a licence to do so. Mr McNaught did not hold the appropriate licence as the principal of Candie Accounting.  For a period between August 2015 and March 2016, Mr McNaught offered on the Candie Accounting Website, the service of Guernsey company formation. In doing so, he offered to carry on a regulated activity, by way of business, without the required licence. Accordingly, the Commission found that Mr McNaught had contravened the Fiduciaries Law in these respects. Even had the incorporations been carried out in his capacity as a director of the Licensee and with their awareness, the Commission considered that the manner in which Mr McNaught carried out the company incorporations would in any event have placed the Licensee in breach of obligations under the Bailiwick’s AML/CFT Regulations (the “POC Regulations”) and the Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the “Handbook”).

Mr McNaught’s position that he did not ignore, but was not sufficiently conversant with, the legislation applicable to the activities which he was carrying out (i.e., the applicable rules on who was permitted to carry out company incorporations), indicated a lack of the necessary knowledge and understanding of legal and professional obligations, and a lack of prudence.

Mr McNaught was not fully candid with the Licensee about his incorporation of the 12 companies, and the full circumstances and purpose of those incorporations.  Given that Mr McNaught was using his access to the Guernsey Registry as a director of the Licensee to carry out the incorporations, this was a serious matter.

Despite being a director of the Licensee, Mr McNaught failed to act in the company’s best interests.  For a period of around 6 years he carried on personal business as the principal of Candie Accounting, without the Licensee’s permission - and making use of his access to the Guernsey Registry as a director of the Licensee.  Furthermore, whilst it was of comfort that Mr McNaught did carry out due diligence on the Candie Accounting clients for whom the companies were formed, that material was held by him at home and was not held by the Licensee. There was no record on the Licensee’s system as to where that documentation could be obtained, and it was not therefore readily retrievable.  The Licensee could not carry out the periodic review of ease of retrieval required of Licensees.  Further, Mr McNaught’s actions involved conducting business using the Licensee’s resources that he knew was not covered by the Licensee’s Business Risk Assessment (“BRA”). All of this was done to benefit Mr McNaught’s personal interests as the principal of Candie Accounting.

Mr McNaught was unable to explain how he came to offer services on his website, which he ought not to have offered.

After the incorporation of the 12 companies came to light, Mr McNaught was in communication with the Commission and was interviewed, and his legal representative also made written representations on his behalf.  Inconsistencies in the various accounts which Mr McNaught offered of what occurred, caused the Commission concern about Mr McNaught’s openness and honesty during the investigation.

Accordingly, the Commission considered that doubt is cast on Mr McNaught’s competence, and also on his probity and the soundness of his judgment. Further, the Commission considered that he engaged in business practices which were improper, and reflect discredit on his method of conducting business and his suitability to carry on regulated activities.

Mitigating factors

• There is no suggestion that an individual or corporate client sustained financial loss as a result of Mr McNaught’s contraventions of the Fiduciaries Law. Mr McNaught made only a modest amount from the company incorporations, although this must be balanced against the licensing costs which a licensed fiduciary would have paid over the period.

• Mr McNaught did voluntarily attend an interview with the Commission, and provided certain documentation.

• Mr McNaught did offer to take any necessary steps, and provided an assurance that the issue would not re-occur when he contacted the Commission in March 2016.  The Candie Accounting website was changed in March 2016, so that the service of company incorporation was no longer offered.  Mr McNaught has indicated that he is not engaged in a regulated services business, and has no intention of re-engaging in this.

Aggravating Factors

• The non-fulfilment of the minimum criteria for licensing was constituted by deliberate actions on Mr McNaught’s part, which were his direct responsibility.  Mr McNaught was experienced as a director of a fiduciary and MLRO, but did not appear to know that he was not permitted as the principal of Candie Accounting to carry out the company incorporations. This implies he was not sufficiently familiar, and did not take adequate steps to familiarise himself, with the relevant legislation before carrying out (or offering to carry out) the company incorporations. Even had the company incorporations been carried out in his capacity as a director of the Licensee, the manner in which Mr McNaught carried these out would have placed the Licensee in breach of obligations under the POC Regulations and the Handbook.  Where a person carries out regulated activities without taking sufficient steps to consider, and ensure that (s)he is acting in accordance with, the appropriate legislation, the Commission considers that there is an element of recklessness.

• Mr McNaught appeared not to appreciate, and attempted to downplay, the seriousness of his conduct.

Whilst Mr McNaught did bring the conduct in question to the attention of the Commission, he did so only after the Licensee had commenced a disciplinary process against him as a result of his incorporation of the 12 companies.  He also failed to disclose the disciplinary process to the Commission.  Accordingly, this can be no better than a neutral factor.

Louvre Trust (Guernsey) Limited, Derek Paul Baudains, Jonathan Ross Bachelet, Haidee Louise Stephens, Julian Dai Lane, Charles Peter Gervais Tracy

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”);

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”);

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 (the “Regulations”);

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the “Handbook”)

Louvre Trust (Guernsey Limited) (the “Licensee” or the “Firm”)

Mr Derek Paul Baudains (“Mr Baudains”)

Mr Jonathan Ross Bachelet (“Mr Bachelet”)

Ms Haidée Louise Stephens (“Ms Stephens”)

Mr Julian Dai Lane (“Mr Lane”)

Mr Charles Peter Gervais Tracy (“Mr Tracy”) (together “the Directors”)

On 18 June 2019 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

• To impose a financial penalty of £70,000 on the Licensee under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

• To impose a financial penalty of £8,400 on each of Mr Baudains and Ms Stephens under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

• To impose a financial penalty of £7,000 on Mr Lane under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

• To impose a financial penalty of £5,600 on each of Mr Bachelet and Mr Tracy under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law; and

• To make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee and the Directors had failed to ensure compliance with the Regulations, the Handbook, the Code of Practice - Corporate Service Providers, Instruction 6 of 2009 and the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law.

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the Licensee was established in Guernsey.  It was licensed under the Fiduciaries Law on 3 April 2008. 

Mr Baudains is a director of the Licensee and was appointed from 20 December 2007.

Ms Stephens was a director of the Licensee from 20 December 2007 to 3 September 2018. 

Mr Bachelet is a director of the Licensee and was appointed from 1 January 2014.

Mr Lane was a director of the Licensee from 27 October 2011 to 5 September 2018.

Mr Tracy was a non-executive director of the Licensee from 20 December 2007 to 5 December 2016.

The Commission conducted an on-site visit to the Licensee between 25 April 2016 and 5 May 2016 (the “2016 visit”). 

The purpose of the 2016 visit was to carry out a financial crime risk assessment of the Firm.  In doing so the Commission reviewed (among other things) a selection of customer files.  

During the 2016 visit and the subsequent investigation the Commission identified serious failings in respect of the Licensee’s and the directors’ compliance with applicable anti money laundering / countering the financing of terrorism related regulations. 

The issues fell broadly into the following categories:

1. The Licensee did not always identify all high-risk factors when risk assessing its clients;

2. The Licensee did not always adequately risk assess a client relationship at the outset and/or failed to carry out the periodic ongoing client risk assessment required by the Regulations and the Handbook; 

3. The Licensee failed on multiple occasions to obtain adequate due diligence on client business relationships, including high-risk relationships;

4. The Licensee did not always adequately monitor customer relationships;

5. The Licensee failed to comply fully with Instruction 6 of 2009;

6. The Licensee failed to maintain adequate board minutes, records of its customers, and the rationale that supported a decision to approve a high-risk transaction;

7. The Licensee failed to have adequate policies, procedures and controls to forestall, prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing;

8. The Licensee unintentionally misled the Commission in its written response to the findings of the 2016 onsite visit;

9. The Directors, during the periods when they were directors of the Licensee, failed to consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Licensee’s compliance with the Regulations and the Handbook or review the Licensee’s compliance with the Regulations and the Handbook at appropriate intervals; 

10. The Directors also failed to ensure that the Commission was advised of material failures to comply with the provisions of the Regulations and the rules in the Handbook, and of any serious breaches of the Licensee’s policies, procedures or controls;

11. The Licensee and the Directors failed to comply fully with the minimum criteria for licensing under the Fiduciaries Law.

FINDINGS

The Commission’s investigation found:

The Licensee did not always identify all high-risk factors when risk assessing its clients

The Licensee failed on a significant number of occasions to identify all high-risk factors in high-risk client relationships, such as high-risk countries and high-risk activities.  Identification of these high-risk factors would have led to a more accurate enhanced due diligence focus. 

The Licensee did not always adequately risk assess a client relationship, and/or failed to carry out periodic ongoing client risk assessment

The Licensee failed on a number of occasions to identify client relationships as high-risk.  The Licensee also failed on occasion to conduct periodic ongoing reviews of its client risk assessments, including a high-risk client that was not reviewed for almost three years. 

These failures in respect of client risk-assessments meant that the Firm was not able to ensure that its policies, procedures and controls on forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing were appropriately and effectively implemented, having regard to the appropriate risk-rating.

The Licensee failed on multiple occasions to obtain adequate due diligence on client business relationships

As a result of the 2016 onsite visit, the Licensee reviewed its entire client base and identified subjects that required customer due diligence (the “verification subjects”).  The Licensee concluded that 28% of its verification subjects required remediation.  The Firm also identified that just over a quarter of the high-risk verification subjects required remediation.  This evidences that there were large-scale systemic failings in the Licensee’s duty to have adequately conducted and reviewed client due diligence and enhanced due diligence prior to the 2016 onsite visit. 

The Licensee did not always adequately monitor customer relationships

Since 2008 the Licensee has failed to always effectively monitor its business relationships, with insufficient consideration being given to the potential risks that the legal structures could be used to launder money or finance terrorism.  In particular:

• the Licensee failed to conduct additional scrutiny of a transaction that, on the same day, saw assets being on-sold through a legal arrangement which, increased the value of the assets involved in the transaction by €4.5million;

• the Licensee failed to effectively scrutinise the movement of millions of US dollars between jurisdictions via generic consultancy agreements and interest-free loans, whilst also failing to identify this as a high-risk relationship;

• the Licensee failed to effectively scrutinise the source of funds for a transaction involving a high-risk business relationship prior to its decision to authorise the transaction.  At the time of the transaction the Firm had concerns that the source of funds may be linked to a sanctioned entity, but due diligence to confirm the legitimate source of funds was not received until after the transaction had taken place; and

• the Licensee failed to raise the risk assessment of a client from medium to high-risk until after the 2016 onsite visit, despite knowing since 2008 that the client was under investigation for criminal matters and had been charged in 2013 with conspiracy to defraud investors.

The Licensee did not always correctly risk rate its client risk assessments.  A number of client business relationships were rated as medium-risk at the time of the 2016 onsite visit, yet re-rated to high-risk after the 2016 onsite visit, following the Firm’s review of its customer risk assessments as part of a remediation programme.  The Licensee’s failure to identify these clients as high-risk prior to the 2016 onsite visit led to a failure to adequately monitor these business relationships as required under a risk-based approach.  This reduced oversight increased the potential for money laundering and terrorist financing to occur undetected, and increased the reputational risk to the Bailiwick of Guernsey as a finance centre.

The Licensee failed to comply fully with Instruction 6 of 2009

In 2009, the Commission issued Instruction Number 6 requiring licensees to review policies, procedures and controls in place in respect of existing customers to ensure that the requirements of regulations 4 and 8 of the Regulations and each of the rules in Chapter 8 of the Handbook were met.  Licensees were required to satisfy themselves that customer due diligence information appropriate to the assessed risk was held in respect of each business relationship by close of business on 31 March 2010.  Where a licensee could not meet the regulations by the deadline they were required to terminate the business relationship. 

The large volume of the Firm’s verification subjects that had customer due diligence deficiencies (28% of its customers), indicates that the Firm had failed to comply with Instruction Number 6.

The Licensee failed to maintain adequate records

The Firm failed to keep adequate records, including (but not limited to) failing to:

• keep customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence as required by the Regulations and the Handbook;

• record or retain any documentation recording its compliance officer’s rationale for a decision to approve a dividend payment in a high-risk business relationship;

• keep accurate records of board minutes for a client company that the Firm administered.

The Licensee failed to have adequate policies, procedures and controls to forestall, prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing

The Directors failed to establish effective policies and procedures for assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of the Licensee’s compliance with the Regulations and the Handbook.  The Firm failed to have a formal Compliance Monitoring Programme (“CMP”) in place until January 2014.  The CMP introduced in 2014 still required significant improvements to be made to it as late as March 2017, almost 10 years after the introduction of the Regulations that required the Licensee to have an effective CMP in place.  The Licensee’s failure to have an effective CMP restricted the Firm’s ability to monitor its capacity to forestall, prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing. 

The Directors failed in their duty to review the Firm’s compliance with the Regulations and the Handbook, and ensure that the Licensee had appropriate and effective policies, procedures and controls in place.  

The Licensee misled the Commission in its written response to the 2016 onsite visit

The Licensee and the Directors unintentionally misled the Commission surrounding the timing of the Firm’s receipt of bank statements used to ascertain whether funds were sourced from a sanctioned entity.  The Licensee and the Directors provided documentation that was misleading to the Commission for the purpose of justifying the Firm’s actions in respect of authorising a dividend payment.  In so doing the Licensee and the Directors acted without due diligence and sound judgement. 

The Licensee failed to comply fully with the Fiduciaries Law

The Commission concluded that the Licensee had failed to comply fully with the Fiduciaries Law, specifically paragraphs 1(1)(a), (b) & (c) and 3(2)(a), (b) & (e) of the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 to that Law.  The Licensee failed to act:

• with prudence, integrity, professional skill appropriate to the nature and scale of its activities, and in a manner which will not tend to bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre; and

• with diligence, competence, soundness of judgement, or with a knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be undertaken.

The Commission also concluded that the Directors all failed to comply fully with the Fiduciaries Law, specifically paragraphs 3(2)(a), (b) & (e) of the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 to that Law.  The Directors each failed to act with diligence, competence, soundness of judgement, or with a knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations to be undertaken.

Aggravating factors

The contraventions and non-fulfilments of the Licensee and the Directors in this case are serious, and expose the Firm and the Bailiwick to a significant risk of financial crime. 

Through its systemic failings the Licensee had potentially enabled specific structures that it administered to be involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. 

The potential to facilitate the movement of substantial amounts of funds, unhindered around the globe over a long period is of serious concern to the Commission.  The Firm has acted in a manner that could bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre.

The Licensee’s and the Directors’ omission to instigate a formal CMP until January 2014, and the improvements required to be made to that formal programme when it was introduced, meant the Firm was unable to identify the serious systemic failings in its policies, procedures and controls prior to the 2016 onsite visit.  It is an essential role of the board of a regulated entity to implement effective policies, procedures and controls to forestall, prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing in order to protect against financial crime, which can have a serious detrimental effect on the reputation of the Licensee and the Bailiwick as an international finance centre. 

Mitigating factors

At the request of the Commission the Licensee instigated a Risk Mitigation Programme, which amongst other matters, reviewed and made fundamental changes to the policies, procedures and controls for forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing. A complete customer due diligence review was also conducted.  An updated CMP has been operating since October 2017, and as of August 2018 training had been completed for all staff on the effective completion of client risk assessments.  Since the investigation began the Licensee has strengthened its risk and compliance team and undertaken additional risk-rating. 

At all times the Directors and the Licensee co-operated fully with the Commission.  The Licensee and the Directors agreed to settle at an early stage of the process, and this has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the financial penalty.

The financial penalties imposed on each of the Directors have been calculated to take account of the periods during which each person was a director of the Licensee, and their respective responsibilities. 

End

Vida Financial Services Limited, Jonathan James Wilson

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “Financial Services Commission Law”)

The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (the “POI Law”)

The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “IMII Law”)

The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the “Insurance Law”)

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”)

The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the “Banking Law”) (together the “Regulatory Laws”)

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007, as amended (the “Regulations”)

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the “Handbook”)

Vida Financial Services Limited (“Vida”)

Mr Jonathan James Wilson (“Mr Wilson”)

On 28 March 2019, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “Commission”) decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £30,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Vida;

2. To impose a financial penalty of £20,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Wilson;

3. To make orders under section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law; section 18A of the IMII Law; section 28A of the Insurance Law; section 17A of the Banking Law; and section 34E of the POI Law, prohibiting Mr Wilson from performing the functions of director, controller, partner or manager of a regulated entity under any of the Regulatory Laws (together the “Prohibition Orders”);and

4. To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

On 18 June 2019, following the decision of the Guernsey Court of Appeal in Chairman of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission v Y (Court of Appeal, 17 June 2019) that reinstated the Commission’s power to issue time-limited prohibitions, the Commission decided:

5. To vary the Prohibition Orders made on 28 March 2019 so that they will expire on 30 September 2021; and

6. To revoke the public statement issued on 28 March 2019, and replace it with this statement. 

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Vida and Mr Wilson did not fulfil the requirements of the Minimum Criteria for Licensing (“MCL”), pursuant to Schedule 4 of the POI Law. In addition, the Commission also concluded that Mr Wilson does not fulfil the equivalent MCL requirements under the IMII Law, the Insurance Law, the Banking Law and the Fiduciaries Law.

In particular, with reference to Schedule 4 of the POI Law, failings have been found in relation to:

• Competence, experience and soundness of judgment: paragraph 1(1)(a);

• Diligence: paragraph 1(1)(b);

• Knowledge and understanding of the applicable legal and professional obligations: paragraph 1(1)(e);

• Engagement in business practices which reflect discredit on suitability to carry on regulated activity: paragraph 1(2)(c)(ii);

• Prudence, integrity and professional skill: paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b);

• Carrying on business in a manner which will not tend to bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre: paragraph 2(1)(c);

• Compliance with the rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions issued by the Commission: paragraph 2(2);

• Business being directed by at least two individuals: paragraph 3; and

• Conducting business in a prudent manner: paragraph 5.

Background

Vida was incorporated in Guernsey in August 1989. Mr Wilson became the controller of Vida in October 2012 and a director of Vida in November 2012. Mr Wilson is also the managing director of Vida. Until 30 December 2018 Vida was licensed under the POI Law and was formerly licensed under the IMII Law.

Vida was the Principal Manager of a fund structured as a Protected Cell Company (the “Fund”), and the investment manager of two cells of the Fund (“Cell A” and “Cell B” respectively). Vida also acted as investment manager to approximately 1,300 alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) based in the United Kingdom related to fractional ownership schemes, and provided investment advisory services to a small number of trust clients.

An on-site visit was conducted by the Commission in December 2016, which identified a number of concerns, including a lack of a robust compliance culture, incomplete policies, procedures and controls, poor quality board minutes and an unfinished compliance monitoring programme.

Director A was appointed Compliance Director of Vida Financial Services Limited in October 2016 and resigned in April 2017, leaving Mr Wilson as the sole remaining director of Vida. From that time Vida was in breach of paragraph 3 of the MCL, which requires a licensee to be directed by at least two individuals of appropriate standing, experience and independence.

The Commission’s investigation focussed on the company’s record keeping, compliance with reporting obligations, the provision of investment advice to a Guernsey trust company and Vida’s provision of investment management services to collective investment schemes (including the Fund, Cell A, Cell B and the AIFs involved with fractional ownership schemes). As part of its investigation the Commission also considered the role of Mr Wilson, as the Managing Director and only constant director during the period from 2013 to date, in relation to the issues identified within Vida and whether Mr Wilson ensured that the board of Vida met its regulatory requirements and, whether as a result, he complied with the MCL.

Findings

Vida

Record Keeping

The Commission reviewed copies of Vida’s Board minutes for the period 1 November 2013 to 16 June 2017. Vida’s record keeping in the form of board minutes and financial records was extremely poor.

The majority of board minutes reviewed were unsigned (so that there is no indication that the minutes had been approved by the board) and were of very poor quality. The minutes made very few references to the Fund and did not clearly set out the decisions of the board. The board minutes did not contain sufficient information of the discussions that were had in relation to Cells A and B.

Vida accepted that the level and quality of financial records and reporting available could have been improved in order to present the fullest picture of Vida’s financial position. The lack of accounting records and oversight of the financial position of Vida had been an ongoing issue for some years. No management accounts were produced to the board during the period 2014 to 2016. It was accepted that management accounts were not being prepared, and Vida did not have the in-house skills to prepare and maintain appropriate accounting and other records that the Commission would expect of a licensee.

The Commission found that by failing to maintain adequate business and financial records of its business Vida breached both Rule 4.1.1 and Rule 6.1.4 of the Licensee (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2016 (the “Licensee Rules”) and did not conduct its business in a prudent manner, in breach of paragraph 5(1) of the MCL.

Change of Control of Vida

The Commission became aware in April 2017 that another company (“Company A”) had a 49% shareholding in Vida. The change occurred in 2012, and no written notification of the change in control had been received by the Commission in accordance with section 27C of the POI Law. This was a breach of section 27C of the POI Law.

Vida’s role in relation to the Fund, Cell A and Cell B

Vida was the Principal Manager of the Fund, as well as the Investment Manager to Cells A and B. Mr Wilson was also a director of the Fund (and between 1 June 2017 and 3 October 2018 was the sole director).

The Commission had a number of concerns regarding the Fund, including:

• Records to reflect Vida board discussions and deliberation on matters related to the Fund were sub-standard;

• Mr Wilson had reported to the Fund board without the knowledge of Director A; and

• The reporting provided by Vida to the Fund board did not provide the kind of performance data that Vida ought to have been providing.

In relation to Cell A, a large part of the investment process was driven by algorithmic modelling and analysis. However, Vida’s investment management reports to the Fund board were basic and provided little, if any, information on the performance of Cell A. The reports also failed to adequately explain how Vida had managed the investment and reinvested the assets of Cell A. This was a breach of both the governing Investment Management Agreement and Rule 4.01(2) of the Class B Rules.

A large part of Vida’s role in respect of Cell B was undertaken by a Fund Oversight Manager. The services to be provided by the Fund Oversight Manager included assisting the administrator with completion of monthly net asset values, ongoing monitoring of the assets of Cell B, oversight of any investment advisors, assisting both Vida and the administrator with cash-flow management, and producing monthly reports for Vida and the Fund. The monthly reports were to include reviews of the investment assets of Cell B, cell performance, and general Cell Activities and transactions.

Vida was unable to provide any records in respect of the investment management decisions made regarding the assets of Cell B. The monthly reports that should have been provided by the Fund Oversight Manager were not received.

Mr Wilson did not believe Vida had any responsibility for Cell B, despite Vida being named as the investment manager in the scheme particulars. This belief was consistent with the lack of records in relation to Cell B held by Vida.

As a result of the above, the Commission concluded that Cell B had not been managed by Vida in accordance with the scheme particulars or the Class B Rules. Further, the Vida directors were unable to take collective responsibility for directing and supervising Vida’s role as Principal Manager to the Fund contrary to Principle 2 of the Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance.

Investment advice and conflicts of interest

Vida was the investment adviser to a Guernsey trust company (“Trustee A”). At the same time, the only investors in Cell A were six trusts of which Trustee A was the trustee.

Although there was a client agreement setting out the services that Vida contracted to provide to Trustee A, Vida failed to provide services in accordance with that agreement. In particular, Vida was not independent and it did not advise on the products of different companies. When providing its investment advice Vida failed to recommend any options other than investment in Cell A.

Further, Mr Wilson failed to manage the conflict of interest between Vida acting as investment adviser to the trusts and investment manager of Cell A in a way that would be expected of a licensee. Although Vida had disclosed to its main point of contact, and one or more of the trustees at Trustee A that it would only invest its funds in Cell A, Vida did not fully or adequately disclose the fact that it would receive fees from both Trustee A and Cell A as a result of investments into Cell A to Trustee A such that it was clear that Trustee A had given its informed agreement to this. When Trustee A did subsequently raise an issue regarding Vida’s receipt of fees from both sources, Vida agreed to waive receipt of any fee from Cell A.Further, Vida did not record the disclosures it had made in writing within Vida’s conflicts register or update its client agreements.

The Commission found that Vida generally did not obtain and consider the risk profile of each individual trust before making its investment recommendation. A risk assessment questionnaire should form part of a licensee’s gathering of facts about a client prior to providing any recommendation. Without such information, the licensee cannot provide adequate advice that is suitable to the specific requirements of each client.

Failure to assess the clients’ risk appetites prior to providing advice, together with the failure to consider options other than investment in Cell A meant that the investment advice could not be suitable to the needs of the client, as required by Rule 5.2.2 of the Licensee Rules.

Vida’s conflicts of interest policy was also wholly inadequate. The conflicts register only included the directors’ personal conflicts and failed to consider Vida’s conflicts that arose as a result of the various roles it played in respect of different entities. As a result, Vida was in breach of Rules 11.1 and 11.2 of the Licensee Rules.

Role in relation to the AIFs

Fractional ownership is the shared ownership of an asset, in this instance, ownership of holiday apartments and villas located on resorts. Ownership is shared via a UK Limited by Guarantee Company (“LBG”), administered by a UK administrator. The LBG has memberships, not shares, and memberships of the Company are sold. The LBG becomes the registered owner of the property asset and declares that it is held in trust for its members.

The FCA deems the LBGs to be a type of collective investment scheme and subject to regulation under the Alternative Investment Fund rules. If a small AIF Manager from a third country (such as Vida) is appointed rather than the AIFs being internally managed, the AIFs have to register with the FCA but pay a substantially reduced FCA annual fee.

Vida carried out insufficient due diligence in terms of the nature and structure of the business itself before agreeing to provide investment management services to the LBGs.

Investors were informed by the UK administrator, with Mr Wilson’s knowledge, that Vida had been appointed as investment manager prior to the investment management agreements having been approved by the Vida board. Mr Wilson failed sufficiently and/or in writing to challenge the UK administrator’s inaccurate statement and have it corrected, despite the fact that it was represented that Vida had been appointed investment manager to the AIFS before Vida’s board had given due and proper consideration to the proposals.

The directors of Vida approved the provision of investment management services to each of the LBGs, and the signing of the respective investment management agreements. However, the agreements that were ultimately executed were expressed to be retrospective, so as to have effect from a date prior to the board having agreed to provide the investment management services. Based on the board minutes, there was no board approval as to retrospectivity.

The board minutes approving the agreements recorded in one part that the relationship between the AIFs and manager should be substantive. However, a later portion of the same minutes notes that given the absence of any significant assets, or the requirement for any significant active management role, the requirements on Vida would be very limited. Mr Wilson stated to the Commission that the AIFs were managed actively but it was subsequently represented that Vida’s role was extremely limited. There was to have been no clear understanding on the part of either of Vida’s director as to Vida’s precise role in relation to the investment management of the AIFs and its extent, and indeed as to the structure of the AIFs and how they worked.

Vida made a decision to treat the UK administrator of the LBGs as an introducer in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Regulations. Regulation 10(3) provides that where reliance is placed upon an introducer the responsibility for complying with the relevant verification provisions of Regulation 4 remains with the receiving financial services business (in this case Vida).

The Commission found that Vida failed at the outset to adequately satisfy itself that the introducer would be able to provide the requisite customer due diligence upon request. Vida also failed to obtain and maintain the appropriate introducer certificate.

As a result, Vida was in breach of Rules 157 and 158 of the Handbook, Regulation 10 and Regulation 4.

The Commission also had concerns about the lack of information received by Vida in respect of the performance of the AIF assets. Vida only requested performance information after the Commission had first requested this information from Vida.

Vida received and paid invoices in relation to the AIF business from two third party companies. However, Vida was not able to explain to the Commission the purpose or rationale for payment to one of those companies or provide any evidence of the arrangement between it and Vida. In relation to the other company, the board minutes do not evidence approval of the arrangement or remuneration.

Vida failed to take timely action to investigate and address a number of red flags that appeared following its appointment as investment manager to the AIFs. These included the lack of input required by it, the lack of performance data provided and questions not being answered.

Minimum Criteria for Licensing

On the basis of the failings identified above the Commission concluded that Vida has failed to fulfil the requirements of the MCL in the following respects:

• Failing to be fit and proper as a result of failures including:

- Lack of sufficient competence, experience, sound judgment and diligence;

- Insufficient knowledge and understanding of its legal and professional obligations;

- Failing to act in accordance with the provisions of the POI Law;

• Failing to carry on business with prudence, integrity and professional skill;

• Failing to carry on business in a manner which will not tend to bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre;

• Failing to comply with rules, codes, guidance, principles, guidance and instructions issued by the Commission;

• Only having one person directing the business of Vida;

• Failing to conduct its business in a prudent manner by among other things, failing to maintain adequate accounting and other records of his business.

Mr Wilson

Conflicts of Interest

As well as being a director of Vida, for a time Mr Wilson was also a director of the Fund. Mr Wilson admitted that as a consequence he did not always know which hat he was wearing when dealing with the Fund (i.e. director of the Fund or director of Vida).

Mr Wilson showed a lack of understanding of how actual and potential conflicts of interest in relation to both Vida and himself should be managed.

Lack of understanding of responsibilities as director

The impression given by the way that Mr Wilson has allowed Vida to be run, including the failure to resolve issues despite the regulatory history and his evidence in seeking to shift the responsibility for regulatory compliance wholly or largely onto others, is that Mr Wilson did not adequately understand his own duties as a Director and controller of a licensee, focusing instead on the investment side of the business which was his main interest. He failed to appreciate that as such he was responsible for all aspects of Vida’s business and needed personally to dedicate sufficient time and attention to ensure regulatory compliance.

Lack of understanding of his and Vida’s roles and responsibilities

Mr Wilson demonstrated a lack of understanding of his and Vida’s roles in respect of both Cell A and Cell B. The Commission also found that Mr Wilson failed adequately to understand the role that Vida should have played as investment manager to the AIFs, and the structure of the AIFs at the time of Vida entering into the investment management agreements with the AIFs and for some months thereafter.

The Commission was also concerned by Mr Wilson’s agreement to the retroactive effect of the investment management agreements in relation to the AIF business, without the consent of the Vida board at the board meeting at which they were approved.

Lack of understanding of legal separation between himself and Vida

The Commission concluded that Mr Wilson did not fully understand the segregation between himself and Vida as separate legal entities. He treated Vida as his second personal bank account, using it to buy his personal motor vehicles, and withdrawing money from the company without adequate records of why this was being taken from Vida.

Failure to provide information to the Fund board and other Vida directors

Mr Wilson acted as if he personally was the investment manager of Cell A, and that Vida had a different role. Mr Wilson failed to provide sufficient information to the Fund board. He also failed adequately to share information with the Vida board in respect of Cell A which denied the board the ability to comply with Principle 2 of the Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance.

Two new directors were appointed to the Vida board in May 2017. However they both resigned in June 2017 as Mr Wilson had failed to disclose to them that Vida was under investigation by the Commission.

Failure to prepare regular management accounts

Mr Wilson did not seem to understand the need, or how, to monitor Vida’s financial position and, at least until January 2017, instead relied upon the last set of audited accounts, the bank statements, a working spreadsheet and other documents. Mr Wilson conceded that formal management accounts were not being prepared prior to January 2017.

Failure to prepare minutes of Vida board meetings

Mr Wilson admitted in interview that he was responsible for writing up board minutes but did not do so. The quality of the board minutes appeared to have significantly improved after the appointment of Director A in November 2016.

Minimum Criteria for Licensing

On the basis of the failings identified above the Commission concluded that Mr Wilson has failed to fulfil the requirements of the MCL by failing to be fit and proper as a result of failures including:

• Lack of sufficient competence, experience, sound judgment and diligence;

• Insufficient knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional obligations.

Mitigating Factors

• Mr Wilson and Vida have co-operated throughout the enforcement process, and have made a number of admissions regarding failures to maintain proper board minutes, accounting and other records, failure to comply with its reporting obligations and failure to ensure proper oversight and reporting on Cell A.

• There is no indication that the failures occurred as a result of dishonesty or any lack of probity or integrity. The contraventions arose predominantly due to Mr Wilson’s severe lack of understanding of the roles of Vida and his and Vida’s duties and obligations.

• Vida and Mr Wilson have made a number of attempts to rectify the contraventions and non-fulfilment and prevent a recurrence. In the first instance, Director A and a compliance consultant were appointed. However, both resigned after approximately six months, at least in part, due to Mr Wilson’s lack of co-operation in improving Vida’s governance, risk and compliance controls.

• The Commission’s understanding is that no actual losses have been incurred by investors to date.

• On 30 December 2018, Vida requested that the Commission cancel its licence under the POI Law.

Aggravating Factors

• The contraventions and non-fulfilment were not brought to the attention of the Commission and are serious.

• Vida has a poor regulatory record going back to 2011, particularly in relation to submitting annual reports and accounts on time.

• There has been a failure to resolve issues to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission despite an extended period of regulatory involvement. That failure appears to lie largely at Mr Wilson’s door, as the controller, managing director and only constant director throughout the relevant period, as a result of the insufficiency of steps taken by him personally to address the issues.

• Mr Wilson acted as a sole director of a regulated entity since April 2017, with few attempts made to rectify the situation until urged to do so by the Commission.

Mr Alan Michael Chick

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law");

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”);

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended ("the Regulations");

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook"); and

Mr Alan Michael Chick (“Mr Chick”).

On 31 May 2018, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

• To impose a financial penalty of £50,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Chick;

• To make orders under section 17A of the Fiduciaries Law; section 18A of the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2002 (as amended); section 28A of the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1994 (as amended);  section 17A of the Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 as amended; and section 34E of the Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law as amended, prohibiting Mr Chick from performing the functions of director, controller, partner or manager for a period of 5 years;

• The provisions of section 3 (1) (g) of the Fiduciaries Law be disapplied to preclude Mr Chick from holding up to six directorships, which would not otherwise be exempt, by section 3 of the Fiduciaries Law, on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to be a director of a company having regard to the Minimum Criteria for Licensing; and

• To make a public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr Chick did not satisfy the requirements of the Minimum Criteria for Licensing, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law or the relevant requirements of the Minimum Criteria for Licensing under the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (as amended); the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (as amended); the Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (as amended); and the Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (as amended).

In particular, with reference to Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law, failings have been found in relation to:

• Probity, competence and soundness of judgment: paragraph 3(2)(a);

• Diligence: paragraph 3(2)(b);

• Protecting the clients’ interests; the interests of clients are likely to be threatened by his holding a fiduciary licence or that position:  paragraph 3(2)(c);

• Knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional obligations undertaken: paragraph 3(2)(e);

• Engaged in conduct which reflects discredit on his method of conducting business or suitability to carry on regulated activity: paragraph 3(3)(c); and

• Engaged in business practices or conducted himself in such a way as to cast doubt on his competence and soundness of judgment: paragraph 3(3)(d).

Background

The investigation concerned the conduct of Mr Chick between 1999 and 2015 as a director of a number of companies, certain of which carried on regulated activities under the authority of a licence granted by the Commission under section 6 of the Fiduciaries Law.

Mr Chick was one of the founders of a Guernsey Fiduciary Company (“the Fiduciary Company”), and at all material times, its majority shareholder and controller.  Until 2008 he was the managing director of the Fiduciary Company and from 2008 to 2015 its chairman.  At all material times, he had executive responsibilities with the Fiduciary Company.

Mr Chick also acted as a director of a number of client companies, two of which are pertinent to the matters investigated (“the Client Company(s)”).

The Fiduciary Company is the holding company of a group of companies, which provided financial services under licences granted pursuant to section 6 of the Fiduciaries Law.  Amongst other companies which shared the licence were two trust companies (“the Corporate Trustees”) and a corporate service provider (“the CSP”).  Mr Chick was a director of the Corporate Trustees and CSP.

During the material time Mr Chick was also a director of a Guernsey incorporated company (“Company A”).

Company A’s business is the development and marketing of communication systems.  It is the holding company of a UK subsidiary (“the Subsidiary”).  One of Company A’s functions was to raise monies to lend on to the Subsidiary to enable it to research and develop its telecommunication systems.

Findings

Company A Transactions and Conflicts of Interest

Company A was in the course of researching and developing a communication system.  As such Company A (or the Subsidiary) was not making profits and consistently traded at a loss.  Mr Chick and an associate were at all material times the controllers and directors of Company A.  Mr Chick, and his associate, through another company (“Company B”) advanced substantial amounts by way of loans to Company A.  By 2012, Company A’s liability to Company B amounted to £6,682,125 out of aggregate liabilities of £10,866,466.

Mr Chick informed certain clients (i.e. the ultimate beneficial owners of companies of which he was a director or the beneficiaries of discretionary trusts of which he was a director of the corporate trustee) of the existence of Company A and the possibility of investing in it, which, at all material times, required funding to carry on its research.  In addition to this, at certain times Mr Chick approached some of these clients regarding lending money to Company A.

Mr Chick contends that each of the clients who indirectly invested, or lent monies to Company A, did so with full knowledge that Company A was a research and development company, that each of them conducted their own due diligence into Company A, and then made the decision to invest or lend monies without his involvement.  He also maintained that each client was well aware of his (and that of his associate) interest in Company A.  However, there was little formal contemporaneous evidence recording disclosure of the extent of Mr Chick’s interest in Company A.  What evidence there was had to be deduced from emails and a description of the transaction by Mr Chick and there was little evidence of the extent of the disclosure.

The investments in Company A, made by two client companies (“Client Company 1” and “Client Company  2” or together “the Client Companies”); two employment benefit trusts (“EBT 1” and “EBT 2” or together “the EBTs”) and a Retirement Benefit Scheme (the “FURB”), resulted from Mr Chick’s acquaintance with the beneficial owners of the Client Companies and directors of companies which settled the EBT’s or FURB, who issued directions, or requests, to the Client Companies or to the trustees of the EBT’s or FURB, to make investments, after conducting their own inquiries.

It was accepted by the Commission that in relation to each transaction the investing or loaning party was aware of Mr Chick’s interest in Company A, but unless otherwise stated, only to the extent that he was a director of Company A, along with his close associate who was also a director of the Subsidiary Company.

The Commission found that Mr Chick acted in isolation in all the material aspects of the facilitation of the investments in, and loans to, Company A. In the transactions concerning the Client Companies, the FURB and the EBTs, there are failures on the part of Mr Chick, and these mainly arise from:

a) A failure to document the instructions to him as a director of the Client Companies or Corporate Trustee acting as trustee to the FURB and the EBTs to invest in the shares in Company A or make a loan to Company A;

b) A failure to document evidence recording what the beneficial owners of the Client Companies or the beneficiaries of the FURB or the EBT’s were told about Company A’s performance, or whether Mr Chick’s interest in the company was ever fully disclosed to the extent of his declaration of his interest in Company A’s equity through Company B, or the extent of his financial exposure through Company B;

c) A failure to document how Mr Chick’s conflicts of interest were managed;

d) A failure to properly document the terms and form of any investment or loan;

e) A failure to inform his fellow directors of Client Companies’ and of the Corporate Trustees of his clients’ wishes to invest in, or loan to, Company A; and

f) A failure to convene a board meeting of either of the Client Companies or the Corporate Trustee to consider and to authorise the investments or loans.

Trustee Duties

The actions of Mr Chick meant that the Corporate Trustee did not convene necessary meetings or take decisions in relation to these matters. This meant that the Corporate Trustee was not able to, did not have the opportunity to, and therefore failed to;

• Keep appropriate accounts and records relating to the relevant EBTs and FURB.  Therefore, it did not fulfil the requirements of section 21 of the Trusts (Guernsey) Law, 1989 and section 25 of the Trusts (Guernsey) Law, 2007 in relation to the duty to keep accurate accounts and records.

• Monitor the trusts’ investments or to consider whether to seek repayment of a loan after the expiry of the 6 month loan period.  Mr Chick caused the Corporate Trustee to enter into investments without due consideration by its board and without preparing records of the transactions.  Mr Chick acted alone in arranging the transactions and therefore he should have ensured that proper consideration was given by the board and the proper records were prepared of the transactions. 

Summation on the issues relating to the investment, or loans to, Company A made by clients

A recurring theme of the investments or the loans made by the Client Companies, EBT’s and FURB are:

a) a serious failure by Mr Chick to document matters adequately such as:

i.  The form and extent of his disclosure of his conflict of interest; and

ii.  The form and terms of investment or loans.

b) Mr Chick taking executive decisions without discussing the matters with his fellow directors, whether of the lending Client Companies, or his fellow directors at the Corporate Trustee acting as a trustee in the case of the EBTs and FURB.

In certain cases, particularly that of the EBT 1, the lack of documentation led to the Corporate Trustee facing difficulties in identifying and recovering trust assets from Company A.

These instances highlighted the importance of documentation.  It provides a paper trail of the reasons why the decision to invest was made which might protect the company or directors in the future.  It also ensures that the management of the company are aware of the investment, and it enables successor directors to inform themselves as to the investment.

In the case of the investments by the EBTs and the FURB, Mr Chick’s willingness to accept instructions from persons connected to the Founder or settlor companies, led him to cause the Corporate Trustee to act in breach of trust because he committed the Trustee to investments in, or loans to, Company A without the Trustee discharging its duties as trustee by considering the merits of the investments or loans.  The agreement of a single beneficiary in each of the trusts was insufficient to amount to acquiescence of all the beneficiaries.

Mr Chick’s anxiety to raise funds for Company A was such that it led him to disregard the extent of the Corporate Trustee’s fiduciary duties and the extent to which the Trustee would have had to implement procedures to deal with his conflict.  Those procedures might have led to a delay in implementing the investment or loans or might have resulted in them not being made at all.

Politically Exposed Person Transaction

In 2013 a person (“Mr A”), who had previously been a client of the Fiduciary Company (but that relationship had ceased in 2010), contacted Mr Chick in relation to opening a bank account outside the United Kingdom in relation to the sale of a foreign property.  Mr A was a member of the UK parliament and as such, for money laundering purposes, was categorised as a politically exposed person (“PEP”).

Mr Chick opened an account at a bank on behalf of the Fiduciary Company in respect of Mr A.  The transaction proceeded as planned.  Mr Chick:

a) Did not undertake appropriate enhanced CDD (as required by the Regulations);

b) Did not refer, prepare and document a risk assessment of the proposed transaction (as required by the Fiduciary Company’s internal policy and procedures);

c) Did not refer the matter to the Fiduciary Company’s Risk Committee for approval (as required by the Fiduciary Company’s internal policy and procedures);

d) Did not assign an appropriate risk level to Mr A and the business relationship in order to ensure the identification of any risk factors and the appropriate management of them (as required by the Fiduciary Company’s internal policy and procedures);

e) Did not refer the matter to other senior managers for approval (as required by the Fiduciary Company’s internal policy and procedures);

f) Did not document the considerations of the risk implications associated with the source of funds.  As a result, he caused the Licensed Fiduciary to be in breach of the Rules and its own procedures providing for the creation and retention of documentation.

In failing to refer the transaction to the Fiduciary Company’s Risk Committee, Mr Chick acted in breach of the Regulations and the Fiduciary Company’s internal policy and procedures that were intended to ensure that it complied with the Regulations.

The matters set out above are an example of Mr Chick’s impatience with procedure in circumstances where he had formed a view that a transaction could be implemented, without delay, due to his own knowledge of Mr A.  In doing so, he exposed the Fiduciary Company to sanction for acting in breach of the Regulations and its own procedures.

The Regulations and Rules

The Regulations provide that a financial service business must, prior to the establishment of a business relationship or carrying on an occasional business transaction, undertake a risk assessment of the relationship or occasional transaction and it must have regard to the rules and guidance in the Handbook. 

Regulation 4 provides for customer due diligence, which is to apply to establishing a new relationship and carrying out an occasional transaction.  Those steps include identifying the customer, any person acting on behalf of the customer and information must be obtained in respect of the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship. 

Regulation 5 provides for additional customer due diligence in the case of a business relationship or occasional transaction for a party who is a PEP.  Enhanced customer due diligence means obtaining senior management approval for establishing the relationship or carrying out the occasional transaction, taking reasonable measures to establish the source of any funds and taking such steps as would be appropriate to the business relationship and occasional transaction to understand the purpose and intended nature of each business relationship.  The verification should be carried out before or during the business relationship or before the occasional transaction is carried out. 

Regulation 14 provides that a financial service business shall keep any customer due diligence information for the minimum retention period (in relation to the sale of the property, 5 years from the date the occasional transaction was completed).

The Handbook has been issued (amongst other provisions) pursuant to the Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations to assist financial services businesses to comply with relevant legislation and will be taken into account by the Guernsey courts in considering whether or not a person has complied with relevant legislation.  The Handbook sets out various Commission Rules (“the Rules”).

The consequences of entering into the arrangement with a PEP in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(b) were that the Fiduciary Company had to:

a) Properly identify the PEP in accordance with the requirements of enhanced due diligence and the transaction: Regulation 5;

b) Assess the relationship and the transaction: Rule 43;

c) Ensure that it documented the manner in and basis on which it had assessed the business relationship or the occasional transaction: Rules 59 and 61; and

d) Apply enhanced monitoring to the transaction: Regulation 11 and Rules 274, 276, 277 and 278.  The requirement set out above would apply in the case of the PEP if a matter constituted a new business relationship, a continuing business relationship, or an occasional or one-off transaction.  In the case of a one-off transaction, the enhanced due diligence must be completed prior to the transaction.

Aggravating factors

• The departures from and non-fulfilment of the minimum criteria for licensing were not brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr Chick;

• The contraventions were serious.  They caused a regulated trustee to act in breach of trust, demonstrated a serious lack of diligence in ensuring that appropriate documentation was kept in relation to the actions of a director (companies acting for themselves as well as corporate trustees).  They also caused a corporate trustee to fail to document matters relating to trust assets and demonstrated a lack of competence in the administration of companies’ affairs.  In the case of the PEP, they involve a breach of the Regulations, the Rules, and the Fiduciary Company’s own procedures (including those relating to the opening of bank accounts) which could have exposed it to sanction or jeopardised its license;

• The conduct in relation to the Company A investment or loans was deliberate as it was Mr Chick who took it on himself to implement arrangements when a person acquiesced in an investment or loan to Company A without consulting with his fellow directors or causing the Corporate Trustee to discharge its obligations as a trustee;

• Mr Chick made no effort to rectify the matters complained of which were in the main separate matters which had been continued as opposed to continuing breaches which came to light in 2013 or 2014 and by which time Mr Chick’s executive responsibilities had been restricted.  The failure to cause the Corporate Trustee to monitor investments was a continuing failure and one which Mr Chick wrongly considered could not be performed.

Mitigating Factors

• Save in relation to one EBT where one of the beneficiaries was vociferous in his complaints as to how Mr Chick and the Corporate Trustee had managed matters, there were no complaints as to the investment in Company A by the persons who agreed that they should be made.  However, that is limited mitigation as in the case of the trusts, as there is no evidence that beneficiaries, other than the beneficiary consenting, knew about the investment.  Further, in the case of the beneficiary consenting, there is doubt as to whether they were fully aware of Mr Chick’s conflict of interest.

End

Richmond Fiduciary Group Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (“the Financial Services Commission Law”);

The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (“the Fiduciaries Law”);

The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (“the Regulations”);

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”);

Richmond Fiduciary Group Limited (“the Licensee”)

On 12 April 2018 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

• To impose a financial penalty of £45,500 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee; and

• To make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee had failed to ensure compliance with the Regulations, the Handbook, the Code of Practice – Corporate Service Providers, the Code of Practice – Trust Service Providers, Instruction 6 of 2009 and the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law.

The Commission notes that, as detailed below, both the level and scope of the sanctions against the Licensee were tempered by the historic nature of the identified failures, the remediation process that was promptly undertaken by the Licensee and the implementation of a new Compliance, Risk and Governance structure following the Commission’s initial visit and presentation of findings.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the Licensee was established in Guernsey and licensed under the Fiduciaries Law on 1 April 2001.

The Commission conducted an on-site visit to the Licensee between 29 February 2016 and 4 March 2016 (“the 2016 visit”). 

The purpose of the 2016 visit was to carry out a full risk assessment of the Firm.  In doing so the Commission reviewed (among other things) the Firm’s business model, governance, policies and procedures, conduct of business, operational risk, financial crime risk, business risk assessments and a selection of customer files.  

During the 2016 visit and the subsequent investigation, the Commission identified serious instances of governance and operational failings as well as failings in respect of the Licensee’s compliance with applicable Anti Money Laundering / Countering the Financing of Terrorism related regulations.

These concerns fell broadly into the following categories:

1. The Licensee did not always properly verify its underlying customers or identify the risks they posed, in particular regarding high-risk customers, operating high-risk businesses in high-risk countries;

2. The Licensee did not always properly verify the source of wealth and/or the source of funds of its high-risk customers;

3. The Licensee did not always adequately monitor customer relationships and, on occasion, failed to address in a timely manner serious issues that arose during periodic relationship risk reviews;

4. The Licensee failed to maintain adequate records of all its customers;

5. The Licensee failed to comply fully with Instruction 6 of 2009;

6. The Licensee had been warned about the above issues on a number of occasions prior to 2016.  Many of the issues were repeat issues noted from an on-site visit carried out by the Commission in June 2013 onwards, but the Licensee had, in a number of instances, failed to effectively address these shortcomings until undertaking an extensive remediation programme in 2016; and

7. The Licensee failed to comply fully with the minimum criteria for licensing under the Fiduciaries Law.

FINDINGS

The Commission’s investigation found:

The Licensee did not always properly verify its customers

The Licensee failed on a number of occasions to verify from the outset of a business relationship the identity of all parties involved; including relationships involving high-risk business, and politically exposed persons (PEPs).  In the case of one high-risk relationship, both verification of identity and verification of address was outstanding for a period of nearly seven years.

The Licensee placed undue reliance upon formally documented site visits by its senior staff in order to verify high-risk customers’ addresses, without obtaining additional documentation in respect of the relevant addresses.

The Licensee did not always properly identify and verify the source of wealth and/or the source of funds of its high-risk customers

The Licensee was noted on a number of occasions to have entered into business relationships with customers operating high-risk businesses.  In some cases the Licensee placed undue reliance on the assertions being made by customers regarding the source of their wealth or funds, without obtaining supplemental documentary information to support these claims.

The Licensee did not always adequately monitor customer relationships and failed to address in a timely manner all serious issues that arose during periodic relationship risk reviews

The Licensee had amongst its business relationships customers who operated companies whose business activities related to mining or were involved in property dealing.  The Commission noted that in relation to these customers the Licensee:

• had not, in a timely manner, been made aware of a change in the shareholding of a foreign company which owned a company that was administered by the Licensee and which was involved in mining-related activities.  The Licensee failed to adequately document its scrutiny of why the client had failed to notify it of this serious omission.

• had failed to complete financial statements for a company involved in property dealing in the Middle East for nearly ten years; which was exacerbated by the Licensee’s inability to properly identify whether any of these properties had been sold; and

• had failed to maintain contact with a high-risk customer, which resulted in the Licensee being unable to resolve outstanding regulatory issues.

Furthermore, the Licensee was noted in periodic risk reviews to have failed, in some cases, to resolve in a timely manner serious issues that arose during the life of a business relationship.  In one instance involving a high-risk customer, action points regarding customer due diligence (“CDD”) were not resolved by the Licensee and were therefore carried forward to the next review, year after year, for a period of nearly seven years.

The Licensee failed to maintain adequate records of all its customers

The Licensee was noted to have kept inadequate records of many of the customers reviewed by the Commission and as such was unable to perform meaningful periodic risk assessments in respect of those customers.

The Licensee failed to comply fully with Instruction 6 of 2009

In 2009, the Commission issued Instruction Number 6 requiring licensees to review policies, procedures and controls in place in respect of existing customers to ensure that the requirements of regulations 4 and 8 of the Regulations and each of the rules in Chapter 8 of the Handbook were met.  Licensees were required to complete this process by close of business on 31 March 2010 and satisfy themselves that CDD information appropriate to the assessed risk was held in respect of each business relationship.  Where a licensee could not meet the regulations by the deadline they were required to terminate the business relationship. 

The Commission noted during the investigation that the Licensee had three business relationships that had been established prior to 2009, but for whom CDD was still outstanding in 2017, and were in the process of being terminated.

The Licensee failed to effectively address previous regulatory breaches

The Licensee had been warned since 2013, by the Commission and independent compliance consultants, about shortcomings in its compliance with its regulatory requirements.  The 2016 visit and subsequent investigation highlighted that the Licensee had not sufficiently resolved a number of the identified deficiencies. 

As a result, the Commission concluded that prior to 2016 the Licensee had not established and maintained an effective policy for review of its compliance with the Regulations and Handbook, as required by regulation 15 of the Regulations, and rules 27 and 28 as set out in the Handbook.

The Licensee failed to comply fully with the Fiduciaries Law

The Commission concluded that prior to 2016 the Licensee had failed to comply fully with the Fiduciaries Law, specifically paragraphs 1(1)(c), 1(2)(b) and 5(2)(d)(i) of the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 to that Law:

• Business to be carried out in a manner which will not tend to bring the Bailiwick into disrepute as an international finance centre;

• A business shall at all times act in accordance with any rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions issued by the Commission; and

• Business to be conducted in a prudent manner, with adequate accounting and other records of the business being maintained.

Aggravating factors

The Licensee’s historic compliance deficiencies, as identified by the Commission following the 2016 visit, whilst not systemic, were serious and involved high-risk customers, in high-risk businesses in high-risk countries.

Mitigating factors

The Licensee accepted that there had been historical deficiencies prior to 2016 in the processes, policies, procedures and governance structure that had been in place.  The Commission acknowledges the efforts of the Licensee from January 2016 to implement an extensive remediation programme (which included a review of its client files), which by March 2018 had been substantially completed. 

In particular, the Licensee has significantly strengthened its compliance function, and has expanded its compliance team by over a third in number. 

The Licensee has also completed a restructure and remediation of its governance structure, its policies and procedures and its customer base.

In reaching its decision the Commission recognises that the Licensee engaged an independent consultant in 2016 to develop a comprehensive corporate risk mitigation programme to improve its corporate, operational and compliance functions.  This programme further resulted in a number of changes, including the appointment of a Governance Director with overall responsibility for governance, compliance and risk.

At all times, the directors of the Licensee co-operated fully with the Commission.

The Licensee agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the financial penalty.

End

Blenheim Fiduciary Group Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law"); The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 (the “Fiduciaries Law”); The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended ("the Regulations"); The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook"); The Registration of Non-Regulated Financial Services Businesses (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2008 (“the NRFSB Law”) Blenheim Fiduciary Group Limited, (the "Licensee")

On 25 August 2017 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

• To impose a financial penalty of £70,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee; and

• To make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee had failed to ensure compliance with the Regulations and the Handbook, and Schedule 1 of the Minimum Criteria for Licensing under the Fiduciaries Law.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the Licensee was established in Guernsey and licensed under the Fiduciaries Law on 14 January 2003.

The Commission conducted an Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) on-site visit to the Licensee between 21 and 25 September 2015 (“the 2015 visit”). 

The purpose of the 2015 visit was to assess the Licensee’s financial crime risks against the Regulations and the Handbook.

The Commission reviewed the policies and procedures, business risk assessment and customer files of the Licensee during the visit.  

The Commission identified serious and systemic AML/CFT failings during the 2015 visit.

These concerns fell broadly into the following categories:

1. The Licensee had been managing and administering three companies that should have been registered under section 2(1) of the NRFSB Law;

2. The Licensee did not properly identify either its underlying customers or identify the risk they pose;

3. The Licensee did not adequately monitor the business it runs on behalf of its customers, including a lack of regular periodic reviews;

4. The Licensee missed obvious “red flags” which should have raised the Licensee’s suspicions, particularly in relation to CDD/AML issues; and

5. Prior to 2015, the Licensee should have been aware of widespread failings in periodic reviews and general client due diligence deficiencies but failed to address these effectively.

On 16 August 2016, pursuant to section 24 of the Fiduciaries Law, the Commission appointed Carter Backer Winter as Inspectors to further investigate the Licensee’s compliance with the relevant laws.

The investigations by the Inspectors and the Enforcement Division identified the following issues:

Failure to Register as Non-Regulated Financial Services Businesses

The Licensee administered three loan companies that should have been registered under the NRFSB Law, but which were not.  The Licensee failed to identify that these loan companies should have been registered until 2014, some six years after the coming into force of the NRFSB Law.  Whilst the Licensee had prior to 2015 disclosed this to the Commission, the current Board accepted that the Licensee had been managing and administering three companies that should have been registered under section 2(1) of the NRFSB Law.

Nature of and monitoring of the business of the loan companies

The loan companies were typically used to make financing available from structures administered by the Licensee to individuals related to those structures.  A number of the loans had defaulted and despite the majority of borrowers being pursued for an update in late 2014, early 2015, the loans remained outstanding.  Prior to being pursued in late 2014, early 2015, the amount of loans in default and the lack of contact led to the Licensee’s own employees considering whether these loans could be considered shams.

The Licensee failed to effectively monitor the business of the loan companies, which was a breach of Regulation 11 of the Regulations.

The Licensee missed obvious “red flags”

A number of files reviewed by the Commission contained obvious money laundering red flags, which should have created suspicion in the mind of the Licensee or at the least been considered in the Licensee’s relationship risk assessment of those clients.  These “red flags” included:

1. An individual who had changed name, nationality and appearance without a clear rationale being given;

2. Trusts with what could be seen as “dummy” settlors; and

3. The appointment of a third party director to a client company without verifying that the individual was suitably qualified for the role; and

4. A company which was treating employee bonuses as loans which the licensee failed to obtain appropriate professional advice upon.

The Licensee failed to establish or take into account the purpose and intended nature of the client’s business relationship when undertaking a risk assessment. This resulted in breaches of Rule 56 of the Handbook and Regulation 4(3)(e) of the Regulations.

The Licensee did not properly identify and verify its customers

The Licensee’s own remediation plan which sought to identify those verification subjects whose customer due diligence (“CDD”) was not up to current standards,  showed that at the commencement of the remediation, of over 2,000 verification subjects, more than half required remedial work to bring them up to today’s standards. 

The Licensee itself noted that it did not have CDD, or had incomplete CDD, on some borrowers within the loan companies.  In addition, no or incomplete CDD was held on the “dummy” settlors, who prior to the introduction of the Regulations and Handbook had established trusts with a nominal settlement.

The majority of the Licensee’s clients were taken on prior to the coming into force of the Regulations and Handbook.  However, in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Regulations, CDD for business relationships existing at the time of the coming into force of the Regulations, where it is not held already, must be obtained at appropriate times on a risk-sensitive basis.

In 2009, the Commission issued Instruction Number 6 requiring licensees to review policies, procedures and controls in place in respect of existing customers to ensure that the requirements of Regulations 4 and 8 of the Regulations and each of the Rules in Chapter 8 of the Handbook were met. In accordance with the Commission’s Instruction Number 6, licensees were required to complete this process by close of business on 31 March 2010 in order that licensees satisfy themselves that CDD information appropriate to the assessed risk is held in respect of each business relationship.

The Licensee should have been aware of widespread failings prior to 2015

Prior to 2015, the Licensee should have been aware of widespread failings in its CDD processes and in particular in its regular reviews of relationship risk assessments.  The backlog of risk assessment reviews was noted by a compliance consultant engaged by the Licensee in 2012 and by the Commission following a visit in 2013.  The remediation put in place by the Licensee following the 2013 visit did not resolve the issues and the review of risk assessments was still an issue in 2015.

Failure by the Licensee to regularly review relationship risk assessments was a breach of Regulation 3(2)(b).  Failure by the Licensee to ensure effective action was taken, prior to 2015, to resolve the identified deficiencies was a breach of Rule 28 of the Handbook.  As a result, the Commission concluded that the Licensee prior to 2015 had not established and maintained an effective policy for review of its compliance with the Regulations and Handbook, as required by Regulation 15 of the Regulations.  

Aggravating Factors

The Licensee’s historic compliance deficiencies, as identified by the Commission following the 2015 visit, were serious, systemic, and had an adverse effect on the Licensee’s business.  The fact that remediation has taken more than 18 months and with the commitment of substantial resources by the Licensee is an indication of the scale of the issues and deficiencies that have had to be addressed, as a result of the previous failings.

Mitigating Factors

The Licensee accepted that there had been historical deficiencies prior to 2015 in the processes, policies and procedures that had been in place.  The Commission acknowledges the efforts of the Licensee from January 2015 to implement an extensive remediation programme, which by January 2017 had been substantially completed.  In particular, the Licensee has gone through a substantial overhaul of its compliance policies and procedures to improve the deficiencies that were identified.

The Licensee has completed the restructure of the policies and procedures, and an extensive remediation exercise on case files.   They have exited or are in the process of exiting approximately 60 percent of the client base either for commercial reasons or due to the adoption of a less aggressive/lower risk business profile.

At all times, the directors of the Licensee co-operated fully with the Commission and the Inspectors and in reaching its decision the Commission recognises that the Licensee has put in place a comprehensive AML/CFT Risk Mitigation Programme to address the risks identified by the Commission, as well as to review more broadly the Licensee's compliance arrangements.

The Licensee agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a 30% discount in setting the financial penalty.

Capital Solutions Limited, Stillwater Worldwide Limited, Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited, Philip Anthony John Montague, Terence Joseph Scullion, David John de Carteret

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law");
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Protection of Investors Law");
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended ("the Fiduciaries Law");
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994, as amended ("the Banking Law");
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law");
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Business Law") - (together "the Regulatory Laws")

Capital Solutions Limited
Stillwater Worldwide Limited
Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited

Philip Anthony John Montague (“Mr Montague”)
Terence Joseph Scullion (“Mr Scullion”)
David John De Carteret (“Mr De Carteret”)
(together “the directors”)

On 14 June 2017 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

  • To impose a financial penalty of £35,000 on Mr Montague under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

  • To impose a financial penalty of £21,000 on Mr Scullion under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

  • To impose a financial penalty of £10,500 on Mr De Carteret under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

  • To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Montague from performing any function in relation to business carried on by any entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws for a period of 7 years;

  • To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Scullion from performing any function in relation to business carried on by any entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws for a period of 5 years;

  • To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr De Carteret from performing any function in relation to business carried on by any entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws for a period of 3 years and 6 months;

  • To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect to Mr Montague for 7 years, Mr Scullion for 5 years and Mr De Carteret for 3 years and 6 months;

  • To issue this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

Were it not for the fact that Capital Solutions Limited is insolvent, a financial penalty would have been imposed on Capital Solutions Limited under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Capital Solutions Limited and the directors were found not to be fit and proper persons in accordance with the Minimum Criteria for Licensing contained in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Investors Law, and Schedule 4 of the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law.

BACKGROUND

In September 2015, the Commission’s investigation initially examined the conduct of two overseas companies, Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited, who acted as the sub investment advisor and promoter to two funds (“the funds”) of a Guernsey protected cell company’s authorised collective investment scheme, (a controlled investment business), between 2009 and 2015. The investigation then widened to examine a Guernsey based entity, namely, Capital Solutions Limited.

The Investigation examined the following issues:

  1. whether Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited were in breach of section 1 of the Protection of Investors Law, in that they had carried on a controlled investment business in the Bailiwick without a licence; and

  2. whether Capital Solutions Limited, Mr Montague, Mr De Carteret and Mr Scullion had failed to act in accordance with the minimum criteria for licensing pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law and Schedule 4 of the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law, including failure to comply with relevant rules and codes, such as:
    •  The Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules 2009; and

    • The Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance 2011.

Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited were jointly owned by Mr Montague and another individual, both of whom purported to be their directors.

Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited operated from the Capital Solutions Limited offices. Capital Solutions Limited was a Guernsey incorporated entity, licensed to carry on controlled investment business under the Protection of Investors Law and act as an insurance intermediary under theInsurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law.

Whilst holding themselves out as directors of Stillwater Worldwide Limited both Mr Montague and his associate advised the fund to make a substantial investment to a Special Purpose Vehicle in another jurisdiction, and then in turn his associate instructed that these monies be loaned to the another structure for which both Mr Montague and his associate had an ultimate beneficial ownership in. Mr Montague had no part in this transaction that we have been able to identify.

Mr Montague was the controller of Capital Solutions Limited and its director since its incorporation in 2002 until his resignation in December 2015.

Mr Scullion was a controller of Capital Solutions Limited and had been the director since December 2008 until present day.

Mr De Carteret was the non-executive director of Capital Solutions Limited from November 2007 until the present day.

To assist with the investigations carried out by the Commission information was sought from their regulatory partners in the British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, British Columbia and the Isle of Man, in order to obtain relevant evidential material as appropriate.

Findings

The Commission’s investigation found:

Capital Solutions Limited

Capital Solutions Limited failed to organise and control its internal affairs in a reasonable manner, retain company records for a period of at least a 6 year period and lacked knowledge and understanding of its legal and professional obligations. This is evidenced by:

  • Capital Solutions Limited failed to keep adequate records in relation to client agreements when providing advice to its clients, or the suitability for investments into the funds. The Commission therefore, amongst other things, was unable to draw a conclusion as to the quality, relevance and independence of the advice provided by Capital Solutions Limited to its clients;

  • Capital Solutions Limited failed to ensure the retention and access to company records after a dispute with its IT service provider. This meant Capital Solutions Limited had significant gaps in their company records and were unable to provide certain information to the Commission for examination; and
     
  • Capital Solutions Limited failed to retain its company records which were in the possession of Mr Montague after his resignation as its director, nor made any substantive efforts to ensure that the documentation was returned.

  • Mr Montague and an associate set up Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited, whilst Capital Solutions Limited was perceived as their regulatory face in Guernsey, failing to confirm the most basic of requirements on whether:

    •  it required a licence to conduct the type of business they intended it to do; and

    • they were actually named directors of these companies. 
  • Mr Montague and his associate thus conducted unlicensed business for a number of years.
     
  • Mr Montague, Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret, as directors of Capital Solutions Limited, demonstrated complete incompetence in their roles.  Corporate governance procedures were treated with contempt, and client data was either lost, or retained by a departing director (Mr Montague);
     
  • Capital Solutions Limited, Mr Montague, Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret thus failed to act in accordance with the minimum criteria for licensing pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law; The Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules 2009 and; The Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance 2011.

Mr Montague

Mr Montague demonstrated a serious lack of competence, soundness of judgement and knowledge and understanding of his legal and professional responsibilities whilst involved with Stillwater Worldwide Limited, Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited and Capital Solutions Limited. This is evidenced by:

  • Between March 2009 and August 2010 Mr Montague was the controller and purported director of Stillwater Worldwide Limited. During this period Stillwater Worldwide Limited was acting as promoter and sub-investment advisor to the funds. In August 2010 Stillwater Worldwide Limited’s role was novated to Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited. Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited continued to act as sub investment advisor and promoter to the funds until September 2015. Between March 2009 to September 2015 Mr Montague alongside his fellow director signed agreements on behalf of Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited whilst purporting to be their directors;
     
  • The Commission has identified that Stillwater Worldwide Limited and Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited were never licensed to engage in the restricted activities of advising and promoting for a collective investment scheme and therefore were doing so without a license;
     
  • Neither Mr Montague nor his fellow director were ever directors of Stillwater Worldwide Limited and were not directors of Stillwater Investment Enterprise Limited until July 2013; and
     
  • Mr Montague resigned from Capital Solutions Limited in December 2015 and retained a substantial amount of Capital Solutions Limited’s company records on a personal electronic device. This significantly affected the safe and effective ongoing operation of Capital Solutions Limited.

Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret

Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret showed a serious lack of competence, soundness of judgement and knowledge and understanding of their legal and professional responsibilities whilst directors of Capital Solutions Limited. This is evidenced by:

  • Mr Scullion whilst acting as a financial advisor at Capital Solutions Limited failed to keep any substantive documentation surrounding the advice he was providing to clients. Amongst other issues this raises, it has prevented the Commission from assessing Mr Scullion’s conduct when providing advice to his clients;
     
  • Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret failed to adequately comprehend the significance of the retention of Capital Solutions Limited’s company records by Mr Montague after he resigned. With the retention of these records no effective and planned approach to remediating the issue of the loss was considered or instigated. Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret failed to consider potential operational risks for Capital Solutions Limited, including inter alia, reputational risk, business continuity risk and legal risk should data be used for nefarious reasons or the potential for breaching data protection;
     
  • Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret failed to understand the seriousness of the dispute with Capital Solutions Limited’s IT service provider which resulted in a significant loss of Capital Solutions Limited’s company records. The loss was not identified until a number of years after the fact when the Commission made requests for certain Capital Solutions Limited documentation;
     
  • Neither Mr De Carteret nor Mr Scullion provided any effective challenge to Mr Montague at board level, with Mr Montague dominating meetings. Board packs were never produced, minutes were never signed nor reviewed in a timely manner.

Mitigating Factors

At all times, the Directors have co-operated fully with the Commission and have agreed to settle prior to the matter being referred to a decision maker. As such, a discount of 30 percent has been applied to their penalties.

Capital Solutions Limited is no longer licensed by the Commission and Mr Scullion and Mr De Carteret have conducted an orderly wind down of the company.

Marlborough Trust Company Limited, Marlborough Nominees Limited, Mr Nicholas Robert Hannah, Mr Adrian Bradley Howe, Mr David Charles Enevoldsen, Mr Benjamin John Tustin

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000 (“the Fiduciaries Law”)
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (collectively “the Regulatory Laws”)

Marlborough Trust Company Limited (“MTCL) and Marlborough Nominees Limited (“MNL”) (together the “Licensees”)

Mr Nicholas Robert Hannah (“Mr Hannah”)
Mr Adrian Bradley Howe (“Mr Howe”)
Mr David Charles Enevoldsen (“Mr Enevoldsen")
Mr Benjamin John Tustin (“Mr Tustin”) (collectively “the Directors”)

 

On 21 November 2016 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

  • To impose a financial penalty of £100,000 on MTCL under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;
  • To impose a financial penalty of £35,000 on each of Mr Hannah and Mr Howe under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law (had it not been for their financial means these fines would have been £50,000 in each case);
  • To impose a financial penalty of £25,000 on Mr Enevoldsen under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;
  • To impose a financial penalty of £10,000 on Mr Tustin under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;
  • To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Hannah and Mr Howe from performing the functions of director, controller, partner or manager in relation to business carried on by an entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws for a period of 5 years;
  • To make an order under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Enevoldsen from performing the functions of director, controller, partner or manager in relation to business carried on by an entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws for a period of two years and six months ;
  • To disapply the exemption set out in Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Hannah and Mr Howe for five years, Mr Enevoldsen for two years and six months and in respect of Mr Tustin for two years;
  • To serve notices of objection under Section 15 of the Fiduciaries Law to Mr Hannah and Mr Howe objecting to Mr Hannah and Mr Howe remaining controllers of MTCL;
  • To impose a condition on the licence of MTCL under Section 9 of the Fiduciaries Law requiring the removal of Mr Hannah and Mr Howe as controllers of the Licensee and the removal of Mr Hannah, Mr Enevoldsen and Mr Howe as directors of MTCL; and
  • To issue this Public Statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that MTCL’s and the Directors’ management and administration of asset holding companies (“the SPVs”) wholly owned by a Guernsey closed ended investment fund, Arch Guernsey ICC Limited (“the ICC”, together with its incorporated cells, “the Fund”), exhibited serious breaches of the minimum licensing criteria for licensing.  Furthermore their activities do discredit to the professionalism with which Guernsey’s fiduciary sector is generally regarded.    Each individual who served as Director during that time, and the roles each of them played is reflected in the level of sanctions levied against each of them.

The conduct that was criticised throughout the investigation was serious.  There was a complete failure to lay down and record responsibilities at MTCL and MNL board level and by the individual directors to ensure that any delegated powers were properly monitored and controlled.  There was a complete abdication of responsibility at SPV Board level.  The backdating of records and creation of false board minutes was deliberate, knowing and in relation to significant matters.  The failure to have in place written advisory agreements was serious given the key importance of them to the investment activity carried on by the SPVs in question.  All these failings were systemic and widespread as regards the SPVs. The false answers given to the Commission were at the very least made recklessly. The failure to report to the Commission and to carry out a timely and full review was serious given (a) the publicity and size of the Arch cru debacle; (b) the faults and failings which have emerged. The matter is exacerbated by the large numbers of retail investors whose interests MTCL and MNL were ultimately in charge of. These matters also impact on the reputation of Guernsey as a centre of financial services provision.

BACKGROUND

The Fund

The sanctions and measures imposed in this case, flow from an investigation by the Commission into the Licensee, undertaken after the collapse of the Fund. Although the collapse of the Fund brought about the investigation, the Commission does not suggest that the conduct of the Licensee and its Directors, who are criticised in this case, had any causal link to that collapse.

The Fund was incorporated in Guernsey as an incorporated cell company on 21 December 2006. It was a closed-ended investment company. At its largest, the Fund had 26 incorporated cells (“the ICs”).

The Relationship between the Fund and the Licensee

One of the ICs, Arch Treasury IC Limited, operated as a treasury vehicle through which the Fund channelled certain investments in which a number of ICs participated. These investments were structured so that the ICs owned SPVs, which were mainly asset holding companies ultimately owned by the Fund structure.

In or about August 2007, Arch FP approached the Licensee to provide corporate services to the SPVs – principally those services were to form the companies, act as nominee shareholder of the companies for the ICs, provide directors to the SPVs and administer the SPVs. MTCL ultimately acted for 23 of the SPVs owned by the Fund.

The persons provided to the SPVs to act as their directors were the MTCL itself and one of its joint licensees, MNL.

The administration services provided by MTCL to the SPVs included covering the company secretarial function and recordkeeping in relation to maintaining the statutory and administrative records of client companies, and those companies’ correspondence records, bank statements and financial information.

The Fund was structured in such a way that it was MCTL who was ultimately responsible for decisions over investment of the Fund’s underlying assets held by the SPVs.

The assets held in the SPVs fell into three broad categories:

i)          Real estate properties for rental or re-sale following refurbishment; 

ii)         Fine wine for long term investment and secondary sales;

iii)        Shareholdings in a company which owned other companies invested in ships.

Background to the Licensee

The Licensee is licensed under the Fiduciaries Law, and also the POI Law to carry out administration of category 1 investments: collective investment schemes. On 4 May 2005, this POI licence was extended to include category 2 investments: general securities and derivatives. 

Mr Hannah was MTCL’s managing director between January 2004 and his resignation on 11 September 2011. After that date, he continued and continues to serve as director. Mr Enevoldsen, previously director of administration, was appointed managing director in Mr Hannah’s place.

Mr Howe, who was largely responsible for business development, resigned from the boards of MTCL and five of the joint licenses at the same time as Mr Hannah in September 2011. He continues to act as the alternate director to Mr Hannah. On 9 January 2014 MTCL notified the Commission that it wished to re-appoint Mr Howe as a director of MTCL and the other joint licensees responsible for the MTCL business from which he had resigned.

Mr Tustin resigned as a director of MTCL with effect from 16 August 2013. Mr Tustin ceased employment with MTCL on 10 October 2013.

The directors of MNL were, at the relevant time, Messrs Hannah, Howe, Enevoldsen and Tustin.

As at 1 December 2012, Mr Hannah was a director of 705 client corporate companies. As a natural person director of a corporate director he was involved on the boards of a further 156 companies. As at 30 June 2013, the number of personally held directorships held by Mr Hannah had grown to 1,405. A significant number of Mr Hannah’s directorships relate to a fractional property ownership scheme that MTCL administered. By the end of August 2014, the number of personal directorships he had, had fallen to 82.

As at 1 December 2012, Messrs Howe, Enevoldsen and Tustin were each directors of some 35 to 37 companies. As the natural person director of the corporate director they were each involved on the boards of a further 35 to 36 companies. Mr Tustin relinquished his directorships when he ceased employment at MTCL.

Facts of the Case - Record Keeping and Corporate Governance

MTCL provided services to the ICs by (among other things) acting as nominee shareholder of the incorporated SPVs, or some of them, and in acting as director of the SPVs and providing its related company MNL as the other director.

There was no record anywhere in the available board minutes of MTCL of a decision of its board to act in relation to the ICs, as shareholder or director. The same applies as regards MNL. Furthermore, and as regards their respective roles as director, there was no record in the board minutes of either company, of any relevant decision as director of any of the SPVs, including any decision to appoint natural persons to act on its behalf at any board meetings of the SPVs. From the perspective of good corporate governance, that authorisation should have been properly made and properly documented. It was not.

The person with primary responsibility is said to have been the person who “in the ordinary course would attend and participate in board meetings of the underlying company.” This did not explain or deal with the position of the person who purported to act for the other joint licensee director. It was said that on occasions where it was “impossible or impracticable for the individual allocated general responsibility for the business in question to participate in board meetings of the underlying companies, another of the natural person directors of the relevant licensee would participate.” This in effect meant that, not only might the person with primary responsibility for the line of business not attend the board meeting of the SPV in question but the decision as to how to vote or make a determination as director of the SPV would, in such circumstances, be taken by another. In effect, the decision making process at all levels was only recorded at the SPV level. The records of the purported board meetings of the underlying SPV companies indicated that the natural persons who acted for MTCL and MNL at board meetings varied considerably and on at least one occasion encompassed persons who were not natural person directors of MTCL or MNL.

To the extent that the boards of MTCL and MNL delegated decision making to specific persons there was no record of any delegation and no record of any overall supervision and control of this delegated function by the respective boards of MTCL and MNL. The directors’ submissions made clear that there was no such supervision and control. Mr Tustin, asserted in his submissions there was no need for him to play any role in supervising and controlling the relevant Arch area of business or the role played by his co-directors. Furthermore, the explanation given, whereby directors or employees could stand in as representatives of MTCL or MNL at board meetings of SPV companies shows that those persons might have no real understanding of the decisions they were implementing acting as natural person representatives of the directors of the underlying SPV companies. Mr Tustin signed crucial documents in relation to Anchor Limited. However, his case is that he was unaware of any failings of MTCL to properly consider investment recommendations put forward to it as director of SPVs or of any failure in record keeping and documentation regarding the conduct of the businesses of the SPVs and that he was not actively involved in the administration of the SPVs. He did however play a role in that respect.

Mr Tustin’s case is that he was unaware that any investment decision making responsibility “devolved” to MTCL. Instead his case is that his understanding was that the role of MTCL and MNL as directors was simply to carry out the instructions of “their shareholder” and that all actions as directors would be ratified by the shareholder. However, the legal shareholders of most of the SPVs were in fact MTCL and MNL. More significantly, a stated case that MTCL and MNL as directors of the SPVs were at the time to operate on the basis that they were simply to exercise no discretion as directors over major investment decisions and instead were to surrender their discretion and delegate their decision making powers to the ultimate beneficial owner, when that was no-where recorded nor apparently was even a matter to be discussed at board level of those companies but simply something that was “understood” from the flexible operations in place, demonstrates the failure of corporate governance, proper exercise of directors’ duties and record keeping at MTCL/MNL board level.

Savile Fine Wine Investments Limited (“SFWI”)

Savile Fine Wine Investments Limited (“SFWI”) was incorporated on 30 November 2007 and was a SPV. Its directors at all material times were MTCL and MNL. During the relevant period while MTCL was involved, SFWI was “advised” by Arch FP or Baron Fine Goods Limited (“Baron”) with regard to investment decisions in relation to wine purchases and sales. Baron was incorporated sometime in 2008 by Arch FP. For most wine purchases SFWI was invoiced for the purchases by Baron.

The Directors knowledge of wine and use of independent information

One of the reasons cited by the directors of MTCL as to why Arch FP identified MTCL to act for the ICs’ asset holding companies was because of MTCL’s expertise in managing investments in real property. However, MTCL, MNL and the directors of MTCL had little expertise in relation to wine investment, which was highlighted when each of the directors was spoken to.

On 18 June 2013, the Commission asked MTCL whether any of its administrators had had access to a wine price index in the course of their work between 2007 and 2009. In its response MTCL considered this function to be the remit of the relevant investment advisor(s).

MTCL and MNL and their respective directors did not meaningfully consider any recommendations made to them by any advisor. There was no meaningful independent decision making or review of the “advice” tendered to it, by the board of SFWI in relation to wine investment decisions made by it.

In circumstances where the directors of MTCL and MNL themselves had little or no knowledge of the wine investment market, the intention was formally to appoint an adviser to SFWI. However in the MTCL timesheet entry of 27 November 2008,  almost a year after SFWI was incorporated, no written advisory agreements were in place between SFWI and either Arch FP or Baron.  When the Commission asked MTCL to confirm that no investment advisory agreement was in place between SFWI and Baron prior to 27 November 2008 and MTCL agreed that there was not although attempts had been made to obtain one.

The natural person directors of MTCL and MNL did not have the experience or expertise to take decisions over wine investment. Nor was such expertise otherwise available within MTCL and MNL.

Mr Howe’s explanation of how directors’ decisions about wine were reached placed reliance on an index that MTCL did not have access or subscribe to nor was it one which the administrators at MTCL would check any recommendation against. In the circumstances there was no evidence that the directors of MTCL (and therefore MTCL itself as director of SFWI) received recommendations and then did, or were able, to check them in any meaningful way before acting upon them. The investment recommendations in some instances were simply a Robert Parker rating of quality and its price. Messrs Hannah and Tustin effectively accepted this.

There were also a number of board minutes that were created after the event which did not record actual meetings of the board. There should, instead, have been records of meetings of the board ratifying transactions entered into.

Anchor Limited: Joint venture with Marine Technologies Holdings Corporation through Nautical Ventures inc.

Background and the structure

In an email sent by Arch FP to MTCL, Arch FP envisaged a new strategic investment arrangement involving investment in a Marshall Islands incorporated company, Nautical Ventures Inc. (“Nautical Ventures”), investing, through wholly owned SPVs (“Owner SPVs”), in ships. Arch’s investment was proposed as being a 50% shareholding in Nautical Ventures, held through a “nominee SPV’ - i.e. the Arch nominee SPV company would act as a nominee shareholder in the joint venture company, Nautical Ventures. In due course the nominee SPV became the company called Anchor Limited.

Anchor Limited (‘Anchor’) was incorporated on 20 February 2008. Its directors were MTCL and MNL; both of these companies were also the shareholders of Anchor as nominees for and on behalf of Arch Treasury IC Limited (“AT1”), an unlisted incorporated cell of the Fund. The ships that were acquired required conversion or refurbishment.

Nautical Ventures itself came to own a number of subsidiary Owner SPVs. Each Owner SPV owned a ship registered in the Marshall Islands: four ships had been purchased in 2007; another one was purchased on or about 9 April 2008 and another was purchased on or about 7 May 2008. The Owner SPVs were all wholly owned by Nautical Ventures other than Saint Mary Shipping Corporation. In the latter case Nautical Ventures owned a large proportion of the shares of the Owner SPV.

Minutes record that on 9 April 2008, the board of Anchor, comprising Mr Enevoldsen representing MTCL and Mr Howe representing MNL, approved a number of documents relating to this joint venture. In particular a number of written resolutions of the directors and shareholders of Nautical Ventures were tabled and approved for execution.

In its letter to the Commission, dated 19 July 2013, MTCL stated amongst other things that it had been unable to find any investment advisory agreement for Anchor. The Senior Decision Maker in reaching his decision took these answers to mean that no final investment plan was provided to Anchor (or MTCL) to approve or even to operate by; no final version of any technical agreement was ever produced to MTCL/Anchor, so that there was no ability to oversee such agreement and that no investment advisory agreement was entered into for Anchor which therefore operated much in the same way as SFWI in this respect.

The Directors' Knowledge of Shipping

Mr Hannah described the relevant experience that he and his co-directors had of shipping as ‘extremely limited’.

Mr Howe stated that he thought that neither he nor his fellow directors had any expertise in shipping.

Mr Tustin described his knowledge of the commercial shipping market as ‘virtually none’.

Mr Howe had been asked what he meant by, in a note of a meeting held on 17 January 2008, that “Marine Technology will send over individual business plans for the purchase of a ship which will be retained on file and not vetoed therefore accepted”.

In effect this was made after a meeting held by Mr Howe in the UK and in effect once Anchor had been established the board would not have been vetoing anything that was proposed to it.  Mr Howe admitted that his colleagues were “not very happy with it” (the contents of the note).

In its submissions to the Commission, MTCL stated that this note had not been formally tabled, but that an ‘informal discussion was undertaken between relevant directors and employees of MTC’. The identities of the parties to this discussion were not revealed; nor has any note of such discussion and its conclusion been made available. The Senior Decision Maker therefore inferred that there had never been such a note.

Mr Hannah, Mr Enevoldsen and Mr Tustin stated that they had been unaware of any note until they were spoken to by the Commission. The note does not show that MTCL had any concerns over an arrangement under which it would, as director (and with MNL the board), abdicate its responsibilities, relinquish control and allow other parties to direct what Anchor should do. There is no contemporary documentation which suggests that MTCL considered refusing the purchase of ships when this was suggested by Arch FP or that it meaningfully considered and approved such purchases or the acquisition of the shares in the relevant Owner SPVs. There was no certainty at MTCL as to the ships that had been purchased and what sort of ships they actually were.

In reality no-one at MTCL had any sufficient expertise to be in a position to come to a considered view that a “veto” could or should be deployed.

The Commission was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was any intentional scheme to mislead relevant authorities, or anyone else, as to whether management of Anchor and associated matters was carried on from Guernsey. However, the evidence did assist in confirming its view that in practice no meaningful independent judgment was exercised by MTCL and MNL as directors of Anchor (or when acting as or for directors of any of the subsidiary companies of Nautical Ventures).

MTCL’s lack of knowledge about the types of vessels held within the structure of Nautical Ventures’ year end, and of Anchor’s appointment as corporate director of a number SPVs owned by Nautical Ventures, and the absence of relevant board minutes dealing with the latter point, confirms the absence of meaningful management role played by MTCL and MNL as directors of Anchor (and of Anchor as itself a director).

As was the case regarding SFWI, neither MTCL nor MNL (being provided to Anchor to act as corporate directors) nor their respective natural directors had the experience or expertise, in this case shipping matters, to take relevant investment decisions regarding transactions involving shipping. The contractual arrangements for this multi- million pound venture were never finalised as evidenced by the outstanding schedules. In effect, Anchor was expected to act as a “nominee” director and did in fact do so as shown in its consideration of the financing arrangements for the joint venture. This was epitomised by the fact that MTCL did not know what type of vessels had been acquired with a loan facility of US$200 million.

The Property SPVs

Arch Real Estate Limited (“AREL”) was intended to advise the real property holding SPVs owned by the ICs. AREL was incorporated on 24 October 2007.

On 20 December 2007, in relation to a transfer request relating to Savile ML1 Ltd, a formal advisory agreement was not yet in place between that real property asset holding SPV and AREL, and that the agreement was awaited from a firm of UK lawyers. In fact it appeared that no advisory agreements were then in place between AREL and any of the property holding SPVs.

On 16 January 2008, MTCL emailed a spread sheet of ‘agreement dates’ to AREL and scanned copies of the signed pages of the agreements. There was evidence provided to the Commission to suggest that there was some backdating of agreements taking place.

There was no evidence to indicate that the execution of these agreements took place after a board meeting to consider the agreements and determine whether to execute them. The timesheets indicated that minutes recording the decisions to enter into the agreements were not prepared until 15 February 2008, which was most likely to refer to the drafting of a minute. MTCL had further stated that an internal review on 15 February 2008 noted that there were no minutes to record approval of the agreements and so minutes were drafted which reflected approval at purported meetings which took place on the commencement date of each agreement. MTCL now accept that the minutes erroneously recorded the commencement date of the agreements. It has stated that it recognises that the proper course would have been to have held meetings to consider and ratify entering into those agreements to take effect from their commencement dates.

In the circumstances:

i)          On any view, 17 agreements dated on their face on various dates in 2007 were in fact incorrectly dated and backdated. The signatories were Mr Howe and Mr Hannah. The dates on the agreements were in each case consciously so dated: the dates on the agreements contain manuscript amendment.

ii)         11 were dated on a date prior to incorporation of the counter party to the SPV. That had the potential to raise issues as to its validity and/or effect.

iii)        When the agreements were signed, no board meetings were held. Instead some time later false board minutes were prepared showing meetings happening approving the agreements on the dates on which they were respectively dated. These were each signed by Mr Hannah.

The Directors’ Role and Conduct

The directors MTCL provided to the companies gave no meaningful consideration to proposed investments recommended by the investment adviser.  This included investments relating to wine and shipping over which the directors’ knowledge and experience was negligible.  In relation to the wine asset holding company, recommendations were often made by the adviser and approved by the Board of the SPV within minutes of the recommendation having been made without any due consideration on whether this was a good investment for the Fund or not.

The Licensee and the Directors were prepared to enter into arrangements with the investment adviser to create the false impression that management and control rested with the Licensee, and that the Boards of the asset holding companies were meaningfully engaged in the decision-making process over the companies’ assets when, in reality they were being told what to do by the adviser or an associated company of the adviser. 

In relation to the asset holding company investing in wine, Mr Howe met with the Fund’s investment adviser and a note following that meeting referred to the directors of the wine asset holding company needing to review recommendations and would no doubt decline some of them.  The Commission established that there was an arrangement whereby the advisors would occasionally suggest that they would send some deals for consideration with a phone call first to say that this is a deal the adviser has looked at, and it is not one that the asset holding company would want to consider, thereby giving the false impression that meaningful consideration and due process had taken place in Guernsey by the directors of that company provided by the licensee. 

It was clear that the 8 July 2008 letters to shareholders were back-dated, because the timesheet entry of 15 September 2008 refers to drafting such a letter. The Commission accepted that the parties had agreed to make the effective date of change of ownership as from 7 July 2008 but the documentation should reflect the correct dates upon which they were created and in the case of minutes record accurately when meetings occurred. Where an event precedes a meeting of a board, the proper course is for the directors to consider ratifying those actions and for minutes of meetings to be created which accurately record any such ratification.

The Commission also concluded, from MTCL’s timesheets and a fax from the Designated Manager, that between 1 July 2008 and 31 December 2008, MTCL backdated minutes of board meetings to 7 and 8 July 2008, the loan notes and declarations of trusts (dating them to 7 July 2008) all pertaining to the restructuring of equity and debt of six SPVs managed and administered by MTCL.

Various descriptions of the process for taking and recording decisions of client boards were given to the Commission but the description which was most plausible was that of Mr Enevoldsen. He asserted that minutes were generally prepared in draft form prior to board meetings and this was corroborated by other staff members and the time sheets. He also claimed that staff would generally not be present at a meeting for the purpose of recording what was discussed and subsequently producing minutes, although they might be called in if something was unclear and the directors might amend draft minutes. This was also supported by comments made by staff members.

The Commission did  not consider that there was anything in itself wrong with draft minutes being prepared in advance of a meeting to act as an aide memoire for the conduct of the meeting and, in effect, a form of agenda. Obviously, if the draft minute was simply “approved” or “signed” with no discussion or consideration of the matters set out in the draft minutes, then the position would not be satisfactory. However in reaching its decision, it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that this latter course was adopted on any particular occasion or that it more generally reflected the practice at MTCL/MNL at the relevant time.

For example, there was the evidence of, Mr Tustin with regard to inaccurate minutes when dealing with minutes of one of the property owning SPVs in September 2007. The minute of the meeting recorded a meeting at which Mr Hannah and Mr Tustin were recorded as present but the minute was signed by Mr Howe. The transaction was the major one of the acquisition of the property then held by the SPV at a cost of some £2.2.million.

False information/statement by MTCL

Mr Hannah had been asked about missing investment advisory agreements regarding other SPVs, and about the quality of recordkeeping at MTCL. He was asked whether the issues explored regarding absence of agreements might arise in connection with other SPVs and said he would like to think not. 

In a letter dated 21 August 2013 from MTCL to the Commission, signed by Mr Hannah, director of MTCL, MTCL falsely stated that seventeen asset holding companies managed and administered by MTCL had entered ‘Property Investment Advisory Agreements’ with AREL on dates between 28 August 2007 and 10 December 2007.

The dates at which these agreements were said to have been signed were incorrect. The agreements had been back dated and signed by the natural person directors of the corporate directors MTCL and MNL. The minutes recording decisions to enter into these agreements had also been back-dated too.

These points are now essentially accepted by MTCL.

An internal review the following month then identified that the decisions had not been minuted. MTCL states that there was no intention to mislead. In all the circumstances, including the accompanying falsified minutes and agreements, these representations by MTCL in 2013 were not true. Furthermore, and in the circumstances, the Commission considers that they were made without due care.

False information/ statement by Nicholas Hannah

Mr Hannah made a number of false claims to the Commission. In particular:

i)          His initial description of the process whereby board meetings were minuted either by a secretary in attendance or, in the absence of a secretary, by the directors recording matters and relaying them to an administrator after the meeting was inaccurate: minutes were generally drafted in advance.

ii)         As appears from above, Mr Hannah, who is known to have signed a number of backdated minutes of board meetings in circumstances where he must have known that there had been no meeting declared at interview that to the best of his knowledge, he was ‘absolutely certain’ that minutes indicated that there had been a meeting.

iii)        He signed the letter, dated 21 August 2013 from MTCL to the Commission, in response to a Notice requesting information under section 23 of the Fiduciaries Law, which contained false statements.

False information/statement by Adrian Howe

Mr Howe, when spoken to, falsely stated that, in order to take decisions about wine investments, the directors of SFWI made use of a price index to which MTCL had access. Mr Howe knew that this statement was false or he was dishonestly reckless as to its veracity.

On his behalf it is submitted that if the indices did not exist he would not have referred to them. The Commission did not accept this. The mere fact that such indices exist was not strong evidence that the evidence given by Mr Howe about the use in fact made of the indices was correct.

Mr Howe also falsely stated that a note he had written on 17 January 2008, envisaging that Anchor would accept recommendations of ship purchases by Marine Technologies Holdings Corporation, had been reviewed by the board of MTCL, which they had been uncomfortable about, with the effect that Arch FP changed the nature of its arrangement with MTCL in relation to Anchor. Mr Howe knew that the statement about the board reviewing the note was false.

Mr Howe also falsely stated that minutes of board meetings were not drafted prior to board meetings. As set out above, this is untrue. Mr Howe must have known this statement was false or been reckless as to its truth.

Co-operation with regulatory authorities

Under principle 8 of the CSP Code and principle 10 of the Principles of Conduct of Finance Business regarding co-operation with the regulator and relations with the Commission respectively, licensees are expected to deal openly and co-operatively with the Commission and keep it informed promptly of anything concerning the financial institution which might reasonably be expected to be disclosed to it.

Whilst there is a list of matters that the Commission would expect to be notified of, as explained in the guidance underpinning this principle, that list is not exhaustive. The Commission would expect a licensed fiduciary to use its judgement as to what matters it should inform its regulator about.

When the then UK Financial Services Authority (“UK FSA”) suspended the UK Arch Cru funds in March 2009, significant adverse publicity over the management and administration of the fund’s ultimate assets, such as the ships, was generated.

Publicity about the collapse escalated through 2010 and 2011 and led to the UK FSA launching, in June 2011, a compensation scheme for Arch Cru investors. By November 2011, an All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Arch Cru Investment Scheme had been established with the aim of achieving the maximum possible compensation for individual investors who have been affected by the collapse.

Whilst none of this publicity identified MTCL’s involvement, during this time MTCL made no approach to the Commission to notify it of its involvement in the management and administration of the Fund’s assets nor did this publicity trigger any internal review by MTCL into its role in relation to its management and administration of these companies underlying the Fund.

The Commission first approached MTCL about its relationship with the Fund on 21 February 2012 when it issued a notice under section 23 of the Fiduciaries Law.

The Commission expects licensees to engage openly with the Commission and report matters of significance about their business of which they consider the Commission should be informed.

MTCL had nearly three years from when the problems on the Fund first emerged to the Commission’s first notice issued under section 23 of the Fiduciaries Law to act. From the manner with which MTCL has responded to the Commission in writing, and when the directors have been spoken to, the Commission came to the conclusion that MTCL and its directors have failed to act promptly and with diligence in investigating MTCL’s performance in relation to the Arch Cru SPVs and in co-operating and informing the Commission in terms of full, frank and accurate answers to the questions sought.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

MTCL was managing and administering asset holding companies owned by a fund which ultimately had a large retail investor base. The invested sums were considerable in size.

As regards Mr Hannah and Mr Howe, their co-operation in attending for interview as a mitigating factor, has to be balanced against the finding that in certain respects they gave false answers in interview.

MITIGATING FACTORS

No specific losses have been identified as flowing from the conduct criticised in this case.

MTCL no longer provides corporate services to the underlying asset holding companies of the Fund.

MTCL submitted documents and information requested under the section 23 notices issued on 21 February 2012 (as amended on 23 March 2012) and 6 November 2012 within the timeframes stipulated.

The Directors and staff of MTCL agreed to the Commission’s request to attend for interview.

MTCL was entitled to draw comfort from the fact that there were other parties to the Fund structure which were regulated to provide financial services in the UK and Guernsey.

MTCL has participated in a mediation process between various parties connected to legal proceedings being brought to recover losses by the Fund.

MTCL was frank in making certain admissions to the Commission for example, in its letter of 19 July 2013 that it had not been “made privy to the final versions” of the schedules to the shareholders’ agreement between Anchor Limited and Marine Technologies Holdings Limited and its letter of 21 August 2013 to the Commission that there was no investment advisory agreement for Savile Fine Wine Investments Limited.

Although the failures in relation to the Arch SPVs was widespread and serious, the assumption must be that the failings do not extend to the other parts of the sizeable business carried on by MTCL (and MNL) at the same time or thereafter. 

END

Louvre Fund Services Limited, Kevin Paul Gilligan, Charles Peter Gervais Tracy

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended (“the Financial Services Commission Law”)
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended (the “POI Law”)

Louvre Fund Services Limited – (“Louvre”)

Mr Kevin Paul Gilligan– Executive Director (“Mr Gilligan”)
Mr Charles Peter Gervais Tracy - Executive Director (“Mr Tracy”)
(together “the Directors”)
 
On 16 September 2016 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:
 
• to impose a financial penalty of £42,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Louvre;
 
• to impose financial penalties of £24,500 and £10,500 on Mr Gilligan and Mr Tracy respectively under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;
 
• to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.
 
The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Louvre and the Directors failed to act in accordance with the minimum criteria for licensing contained in Schedule 4 to the POI Law.
 
BACKGROUND
 
The background to these decisions is as follows.
 
Louvre took over as the designated administrator of an authorised collective investment scheme (“the Fund”) in August 2013.  The Fund was a protected cell company with three cells.  Mr Gilligan is the Managing Director of Louvre and was a director of the Fund between October 2013 until September 2015 and Mr Tracy is the Chairman and Compliance Officer of Louvre. 
 
FINDINGS
 
Following an investigation into the Fund and Louvre, the Commission found:

Louvre

• Louvre demonstrated a lack of understanding of the risk profile of the Fund and the Fund’s main underlying investment;
 
• Louvre had a number of concerns regarding the Fund but allowed the Fund to continue pre-existing actions that had a dubious benefit to investors.  For example Louvre:
  • permitted a 20% audit hold-back without understanding the reasons for the hold-back; and
  • allowed inter-cell loans to continue despite having concerns about the legitimacy of the loans;
• Despite having a number of concerns and recognising that the Fund presented a high risk to Louvre, it failed to implement enhanced compliance procedures to manage the risk of the Fund;
 
• Despite the concerns of Louvre, it did not inform the Commission of any of these concerns.
 
• As a result, the Commission concluded that Louvre did not administer the Fund with the appropriate soundness of judgement and diligence.

Mr Gilligan

•  Mr Gilligan failed to demonstrate he acted with diligence, experience and soundness of judgement in relation to the Fund.  For example, Mr Gilligan:
  • was unable to explain why the Fund was applying a 20% audit hold-back; and
  • did not give sufficient thought as to the benefit to the investors of inter-cell lending or the detriment to the cell, and ultimately investors, of the repayment of the loans with illiquid assets.
• The Commission formed the view that due to his level of experience, Mr Gilligan was unable to withstand the pressures put on him by the promotor of the Fund, who had a significant amount of control over the Fund. As a result, Mr Gilligan found himself in a position in which he has had to change stance on a number of matters;
 
• Mr Gilligan’s conduct contributed to Louvre’s failure to administer the Fund appropriately.

Mr Tracy

• Mr Tracy failed to demonstrate he acted with diligence and soundness of judgement in relation to his role as Louvre’s Compliance Officer.  Mr Tracy had a significant role in ensuring compliance standards were satisfied.  Mr Tracy failed to ensure that enhanced compliance procedures were undertaken to manage the identified risks of the Fund and despite being aware of a number of concerns regarding the Fund;
 
• Despite the concerns of Louvre and himself, Mr Tracy did not inform the Commission;
 
• Mr Tracy’s conduct contributed to Louvre’s failure to administer the Fund appropriately.

MITIGATING FACTORS

Louvre recognises that there were issues with its compliance obligations and have taken steps to remediate these issues.  This includes a review of their compliance processes and a number of changes to their policies and procedures have been made as a result of the review, including the proposed appointment of a new Compliance Officer.
 
Efforts were made to remedy some of Louvre’s concerns.
 
Mr Gilligan resigned as a director of the Fund in September 2015.
 
At all times Louvre and the Directors co-operated fully with the Commission.  Louvre and the Directors agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties.

Bordeaux Services (Guernsey) Limited, Peter Gordon Radford, Neal Anthony Meader, Geoffrey Robert Tostevin

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Protection of Investors Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended ("the Fiduciaries Law")
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994, as amended ("the Banking Law")
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law")
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Business Law") (together "the Regulatory Laws")


Bordeaux Services (Guernsey) Limited ("Bordeaux")

Peter Gordon Radford
Neal Anthony Meader
Geoffrey Robert Tostevin

AMENDED PUBLIC STATEMENT

On 28 July 2015, the Commission decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £150,000 on Bordeaux under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

2. To impose a financial penalty of £50,000 on Mr Radford under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

3. To impose a financial penalty of £30,000 on Mr Meader under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

4. To impose a financial penalty of £30,000 on Mr Tostevin under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

5. To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Radford, Mr Meader and Mr Tostevin (together "the Bordeaux Directors") for a period of five years from becoming or continuing to hold the function of controller, partner, director or manager in relation to business carried on by an entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws;

6. To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Radford, Mr Meader and Mr Tostevin.

7. To issue a Public Statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, necessary and proportionate to make this decision and impose these penalties having concluded that Bordeaux and the Bordeaux Directors failed to fulfil the criteria in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law.

The Bordeaux Directors failed to ensure Bordeaux carried on its business with appropriate systems to enable it to function properly and as a result it did not act with prudence nor exercise professional skill appropriate to the nature and scale of its activities.

The Bordeaux Directors demonstrated a consistent and serious lack of appropriate competence, judgement and diligence. Their conduct demonstrated a lack of understanding and attention to the legal obligations of Bordeaux. These failings suggest that the interests of investors and the reputation of the Bailiwick as a financial centre are, or are likely, to be jeopardised by their holding a position of director, controller, partner or manager of a licensee in the immediate future.

Subsequently, on 11 May 2016, the Royal Court set aside the penalty of £150,000 imposed on Bordeaux Services (Guernsey) Limited and the prohibition order of 5 years imposed on Mr Tostevin and ordered the Commission to reconsider both matters. The Commission has reconsidered the matters as ordered by the Royal Court and decided: -

• To impose a financial penalty of £100,000 on Bordeaux under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law;

• To make orders under the Protection of Investors Law and the Fiduciaries Law prohibiting Mr Tostevin for a period of two years commencing 31 July 2015 from becoming or continuing to hold the function of controller, partner, director or manager in relation to business carried on by an entity licensed under the Protection of Investors Law and the Fiduciaries Law

• To issue a revised Public Statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, necessary and proportionate to make this decision in the light of the comments of the Royal Court in its decision.

BACKGROUND

Bordeaux is licensed under the Protection of Investors Law and the Fiduciaries Law.

During the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2009 ("the Relevant Period"), Bordeaux was the Designated Manager and Administrator of Arch Guernsey ICC Limited, now known as SPL Guernsey ICC Limited ("the ICC") and its incorporated cells ("the ICs"). The ICs owned special purpose vehicles ("SPVs"), which held assets ultimately owned by the fund structure. At its largest, the ICC had 26 ICs, the majority of which were listed on the Channel Island Stock Exchange ("CISX"). The ICC and the ICs are referred to collectively as "the Fund".

The Bordeaux Directors were at all material times the directors, the ultimate beneficial owners and the controllers of Bordeaux. Mr Radford and Mr Meader were also directors of the Fund. Mr Tostevin was the Compliance Officer at Bordeaux between 2000 and 2003 and again between August 2007 and January 2010.

Two United Kingdom Open-Ended Investment Companies, CF Arch Cru Investment Funds and CF Arch Cru Diversified Funds ("the UK OEICs"), whose Investment Manager was Arch Financial Products LLP ("Arch FP"), invested a significant proportion of their scheme property into the ICs of the Fund. Over 2007 and 2008 total investments in the Fund approximated £595 million.

On 13 March 2009 operation of the UK OEICs was suspended by the UK Financial Services Authority over liquidity concerns following increased redemptions.

On 21 December 2010, the Fund's consolidated net asset value was calculated at £234 million, this represented a significant loss to investors.

FINDINGS

Conflicts of interest

Any properly organised entity operating a business of financial services should ensure that there were procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest. Bordeaux should have done so and the Bordeaux Directors should have ensured that it did. It is no answer to this criticism to rely upon the Articles of Association or any Investment Management Agreement. There was no evidence that the Bordeaux Directors managed a conflict of interest appropriately within the Fund structure.

In failing to put in place and implement procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest Bordeaux acted in breach of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law under which Bordeaux was required to carry on business with prudence and integrity and with professional skill appropriate to the nature and scale of its activities.

Calculation of net asset values and their notification to CISX

The Fund's Scheme Particulars and the IC Particulars state that the IC's Directors had delegated the responsibility for the determination of the net asset value ("NAV") to the Administrator, i.e. Bordeaux. Bordeaux was required to calculate the IC's NAV on a monthly basis and to notify CISX of the prices as soon as practicable after calculation.

During 2008 the timetable for the production of NAVs by Bordeaux slipped and NAVs for the end of March 2008 were finalised on 31 July 2008, an interval of four months from the required date of completion. Correspondence between Bordeaux and Arch FP stated that Bordeaux had resourcing issues and were looking to add to those resources to speed up the production of the NAVs. There were further delays in 2009.

As a result of the delay in producing NAVs during 2008 and 2009 investors and potential investors were not given up to date information on which to base their decisions. Furthermore, as most of the ICs were listed on CISX, this could have led to the creation of a false market as independent investors would have dealt, or considered dealing, on indicative sale prices that were not properly reflective of NAV, but the Investment Manager who was undertaking inter-cellular trades would have been aware of a more accurate, up to date, value of the ICs.

The Fund's auditors also referred to a delay to valuations for 31 March 2009 which were not finalised until September 2009 and identified substantial weaknesses in the Fund's records for which Bordeaux was responsible.

The delays appear to be in part attributable to failures of Bordeaux to organise its business with the appropriate degree of diligence and professionalism in breach of paragraphs 1(1)(b), 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the Protection of Investors Law.

NAV Methodology

The listed ICs acquired significant assets in the form of loan notes, many of which were issued by the IC Arch Treasury IC Limited ("AT1"). The terms of these varied but many included a coupon with a fixed rate of interest. Many were asset backed, for example by ships, or were otherwise related to assets held either by the investing IC or by AT1. Many effectively permitted the borrower to defer the payment of the coupon for a period of time (i.e. to capitalise the interest).

Prior to October 2008, Bordeaux valued these loan notes at "par plus accruals". Thus, in effect, from one month to the next, in calculating an IC's NAV, where that IC held a loan note, Bordeaux increased the NAV by the income due that month, irrespective of whether that income had been paid, and irrespective of any change in the risk of the investment, such as a change in the value of the underlying asset upon which the note was secured. The increase in NAV by the income due in the month may be an appropriate method of valuation but it does require the valuer to investigate the underlying asset from time to time.

The NAVs at the end of February 2009 were significantly higher than the NAVs as at the end of March and April 2009, much of which was attributable to the overvalued loan notes. The substantial fall in the NAVs of the ICs that occurred subsequent to the suspension of the Fund and the appointment of a new administrator may demonstrate the inaccuracy of the pricing up to that point.

There is no evidence that Bordeaux or Mr Radford and Mr Meader, as Fund Directors, raised issues with the Investment Manager as to the performance of the Fund in comparison to other funds within the same sector during the Relevant Period when it would have been prudent to undertake such a comparison or raised any questions in respect of the valuations or the method of valuation.

There were no adequate procedures in place at Bordeaux for the valuation of unlisted securities in the Fund and Bordeaux was totally reliant on the Investment Manager to provide such valuations. In a compelled interview, Mr Radford was asked what valuation methodologies Bordeaux was employing for non-quoted assets, Mr Radford replied, "we didn't discuss non-quoted assets."

The answer above is consistent with Bordeaux relying entirely upon Arch FP in relation to illiquid assets; albeit it might have been entitled to rely on Arch FP to provide valuations it should have taken steps to understand the methodology employed and put in place a procedure to check on the valuations produced by Arch FP. Failure to understand valuations placed on unquoted assets by Arch FP resulted in Arch FP being unsupervised in relation to the provision of valuations of unlisted securities.

Compliance with Fund Documentation

On several occasions, requests for the release of funds to the SPVs comprised of no more than a one side of A4 letter faxed to Bordeaux. The request would then be forwarded to the custodian, sometimes within a very short period of time of receipt of the fax, suggesting that little or no analysis of the request had taken place. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that any subsequent analysis or review of the transactions had taken place by Bordeaux.

It was apparent that Bordeaux did not have adequate procedures in place relating to the making of payments. These functions were not adequately understood by staff resulting in a gap surrounding the review of payments contributing to a failure to ensure compliance with the Fund's documentation and to protect the interests of investors.

From 15 December 2008, Bordeaux, as Designated Manager and Administrator of the Fund, was required by Rule 2.01(c) of the Authorised Closed Ended Investment Scheme Rules, 2008 ("the ACEIS Rules") to administer the Fund in accordance with the most recently published information particulars.

Whilst there were no transactions undertaken by the Fund following the implementation of the ACEIS Rules, it appears that during the Relevant Period Bordeaux had failed to monitor investments made by Arch FP to ensure that the Fund was administered in accordance with the scheme documents, this continued until the eventual suspension of the Fund in July 2009.

The failure to monitor whether investments complied with the scheme particulars manifested a lack of competence and soundness of judgement, diligence and prudence and appropriate professional skill.

Record Keeping

Principle 9 of the Licensees (Financial Resources, Notification, Conduct of Business and Compliance) Rules, 1998 ("the FNCC Rules"), the rules in force during the Relevant Period, required a licensee to organise and control its internal affairs in a responsible manner, keeping proper records, and where the firm employs staff or is responsible for the conduct of investment business by others, should have adequate arrangements to ensure that they are suitable, adequately trained and properly supervised and that it has well defined compliance procedures.

Rule 5.02 of the FNCC Rules required Bordeaux to have in place record keeping procedures and keep records for five years. The Commission found that original documents relating to the Fund were not kept in Guernsey; transaction documents were missing for up to a year and a half.

Bordeaux's level of control or oversight over the role of the Investment Manager was significantly reduced by not maintaining or having sight of original documentation. The Commission saw no evidence that Bordeaux took steps to ensure that the Investment Manager provided Bordeaux with all original documentation. It is noteworthy that Bordeaux's requests for original documents to the Investment Manager did not take place until the Commission had requested sight of the documentation.

Payment of Fees

A large proportion of the Fund's trading was between ICs. This included multiple instances of a listed IC subscribing into another IC's offering of shares. The explanation put forward by Arch FP for the inter-cellular trading was that it was more advantageous to investors to cross invest rather than leaving cash in an IC. As a result of inter-cellular trading between ICs, significant fees were generated for the benefit of the Investment Manager.

The IC Particulars state that Arch FP would be paid a 2% initial charge for any subscription money received and a 1.5% - 2% management fee based upon the NAV (to be amortised over a five year period). The net effect of cross trading was not only a payment to the Investment Manager based on the amount subscribed from one IC to another but an overall increase in the NAV of the investing IC. This resulted in increased subscription and management fees payable to Arch FP.

Whilst at all material times Bordeaux was aware of the transactions being entered into on behalf of the ICs, albeit after the event, the structure of these transactions and the fees being taken by Arch FP, any enquiry by Bordeaux was limited and insufficient. Bordeaux should have ensured that procedures were in place to prevent the fees being charged or paid as opposed to having to recover the fees after they have been paid.

Board Minutes

As company secretary to the Fund, one of Bordeaux's responsibilities was to create and maintain minutes of meetings of the Fund boards. A review of the minutes kept by Bordeaux has shown that they are perfunctory in their nature considering the number and depth of issues discussed.

Minutes should be an accurate and clear record of the discussion and decisions made at a meeting. Mr Meader understood that the corporate secretarial department of Bordeaux was "very poor". This should have prompted the Bordeaux Directors to take action to remediate this failing. During the Relevant Period, the board was responsible for ensuring compliance with Principle 9 of the FNCC Rules which states that a licensee should be controlled and organised in a responsible manner so as to keep proper records, it is clear that this was not the case with Bordeaux.

Mr Meader confirmed during a compelled interview that Bordeaux used template minutes for meetings in relation to listing of cells on the CISX rather than minuting the discussion that had taken place. There is no evidence that Mr Meader, as a director of Bordeaux, queried or challenged this procedure for drafting minutes ahead of meetings. Mr Tostevin was not aware that minutes were being produced in respect of meetings that had not taken place.

As a result of the failure, the records of the company would not have been accurate and complete and represented a misleading record of affairs. The conduct of the Board of Bordeaux demonstrates a failure to understand the requirement to keep full, proper and not misleading records in respect of the controlled investment business undertaken.

Deficiencies in Bordeaux's Compliance Function

Rule 5.01(5) of the FNCC Rules required a licensee to appoint a compliance officer in Guernsey to be responsible for compliance. Rule 5.01(3)(b) required a licensee to review its written compliance procedures at least annually and to ensure that its employees are at all times aware of the current procedures.

The compliance monitoring programme of Bordeaux during the relevant period was deficient and no serious attempt was made to improve it. Bordeaux did not ensure that its compliance officer, or any member of staff or director of Bordeaux, from the date of licensing until 2012 had the relevant experience or qualifications to fulfil the role.

Mr Tostevin estimated that he spent 10-15% of his time on compliance matters during his tenure as compliance officer, with the remainder of his time being taken up by IT and accountancy tasks. Mr Tostevin also explained to the Commission in an interview that he did not consider that the role of a compliance officer, or his role as a director of Bordeaux, included a responsibility to assess the status of Bordeaux's internal rules and procedures against the changing external regulatory environment.

It is apparent that there was no clear delineation of responsibility for ensuring Bordeaux complied with external regulatory changes. Mr Tostevin conceded that to his knowledge no individual had checked Bordeaux's internal documents for continued compliance with the external regulatory scheme between the time of the creation of the documents in 2006 or 2007 and the end of the Relevant Period.
As a result, Bordeaux's procedures were not updated to reflect the important changes brought about by the introduction of the ACEIS Rules following the amendment of the Protection of Investors Law to bring closed ended schemes with the remit of that law. The Fund became an authorised closed ended fund as it was grandfathered through the transitional provisions of those rules therefore this was particularly pertinent to Bordeaux.

The compliance monitoring programme did not identify any of the issues that have been identified above. The programme should have revealed that conflicts of interest were not being mitigated or managed, that the Fund was not being administered in accordance with the Scheme Particulars, that there were not adequate record keeping procedures in place and other such breaches as identified within this Public Statement.

Mr Radford signed a letter to the Fund's auditors certifying that the Fund was complying with the laws and regulations dated 15 December 2009 when he was in no position to do so, as evidenced above. Bordeaux did not have sufficient compliance procedures in place to be able to conclude that there were no issues of non-compliance. As a result, the auditor may have been materially misled as to the true position of the scheme.

Client Take On Procedures

Prior to the launch of the Fund, Bordeaux had not had a relationship with Arch FP. Arch FP had not previously managed a Guernsey closed ended scheme. Arch FP was taken on as a new client on or around November 2006. Bordeaux's relationship with Arch FP was not subject to any new client take-on procedures.

Although Arch FP was authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority, Bordeaux should have taken appropriate steps to monitor Arch FP, particularly as they were a new client to Bordeaux and Arch FP had not previously managed a Guernsey closed-ended fund before. Bordeaux should have ensured that appropriate client take-on procedures were in place to identify potential risks with new business. Failure to do so was (amongst other matters) a failure to fulfil paragraph 3(2)(f) of schedule 1 to the Fiduciary Law. It also showed a failure to act with the appropriate level of skill and competence and diligence.

Anti-Money Laundering Awareness

Bordeaux did not have relevant or effective sanctions training during the Relevant Period. Mr Radford confirmed that the sanctions training at Bordeaux did not cover the types of considerations raised by the nature of investments invested in by Arch FP, such as a ship, which may be hired or chartered by a party subject to a sanction.

This is a breach of Rule 351 of the Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook") which requires financial services businesses to consult the full list of financial sanctions targets on the sanctions committee list. Investments in the Fund were multi-jurisdictional and assets held by, or for the Fund, may have been chartered by Iranian companies and there is no evidence that the financial sanctions targets were reviewed at any time or consideration as to the potential breach of UN, EU or Guernsey sanctions had been undertaken.

Staff Training Deficiencies at Bordeaux

There was insufficient staff training undertaken at Bordeaux during the Relevant Period, with the result that some staff did not possess adequate knowledge or skills to fulfil their duties.

No external book-keeping, accounts or valuation training was given to the staff member responsible for the Fund's book-keeping. All that the staff member received was in-house training for posting securities and book-keeping. The member of staff received no training relating specifically to closed-ended funds, again only in-house instruction was provided.

The member of staff also confirmed that she did not receive any formal compliance training or training on conflicts of interest.

Paragraph 5(3)(a) of schedule 4 to the Protection of Investors Law requires the Commission to consider whether a licensee has staff of adequate number, skills, knowledge and experience to undertake and fulfil their duties. From the review undertaken by the Commission it would appear that Bordeaux failed to ensure that staff were adequately trained or experienced and as a result this criteria was not satisfied.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

Although the Investment Manager was authorised by the FSA, Bordeaux should have undertaken appropriate due diligence and on-going monitoring of the Investment Manager particularly as Arch FP had not been previously known to Bordeaux and the Investment Manager had not previously managed a closed-ended collective investment scheme in any jurisdiction.

Bordeaux was aware and paid "structuring fees" to Arch FP regarding shipping transactions without adequate questioning of the purpose of the shipping transactions.

The Bordeaux Directors were aware of the fees taken by AT1 regarding shipping transactions despite the fact that AT1 was owned by Arch FP, the Directors of Bordeaux did not question the validity of these fee payments.
The Bordeaux Directors failed at all material times to consider the conflicts of interest arising from the ownership of AT1 in entering into transactions with the ICs.

The issues identified indicate a systemic and serious weakness of the management systems and internal controls within Bordeaux, throughout the Relevant Period and more recently.

The Commission has received a number of complaints from investors in the UK OEICs and their MPs.

The Bailiwick of Guernsey as a reputable finance centre has been put at risk by the adverse media attention.

Bordeaux had been subject to heightened supervision by the Commission.

Bordeaux requested an extension to the first request for information and documents under section 27 of the Protection of Investors Law after 5pm the day before the submission was originally due to the Commission.

On 5 August 2013, Bordeaux's legal advisor notified the Commission that there were approximately 75,000 further documents which have not yet been reviewed in order to determine whether they are responsive to the Commission's Notice dated 24 January 2012. The failure to review these documents and submit them to the Commission, if relevant to the investigation and as part of the section 27 Notice served upon them, is a breach of the Protection of Investors Law.

The failure by Bordeaux to identify the additional 75,000 documents also calls into question whether the record keeping procedures utilised by Bordeaux are in compliance with section 6.1.4 of the Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2009.

MITIGATING FACTORS

Bordeaux no longer acts as the Designated Manager and Administrator of the Fund.

Bordeaux did not double charge its administration fee on the cross investments therefore it did not gain monetarily from the inter-cellular trading.

Bordeaux was entitled to place a degree of reliance upon the FSA authority conferred upon the Investment Manager and a degree of reliance on the Commission who confirmed that it would accept an application from Arch FP as a new promoter having undertaken its own due diligence.

The Directors and staff of Bordeaux attended the Commission's offices when required to do so for interview.

There is no allegation of dishonesty against Bordeaux or the Bordeaux Directors.

Guernsey Insurance Brokers Ltd, Mr Richard Julian Wickins and Mr David John Merrien

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Protection of Investors Law")
T
he Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994, as amended ("the Banking Law")The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended ("the Fiduciaries Law")
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Business Law")
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law")

Guernsey Insurance Brokers Limited

Mr Richard Julian Wickins
Mr David John Merrien

AMENDED PUBLIC STATEMENT

On 3 December 2014, the Commission decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £8,000 on Guernsey Insurance Brokers Limited ("GIBL") under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law.

2. To impose a financial penalty of £8,000 on Mr Richard Julian Wickins ("Mr Wickins") under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law.

3. ...

4. To impose the following conditions on the licence held by GIBL under section 7 of the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law:

a. That within three months of the date of the imposition of these conditions, GIBL is to make such appointment or appointments as may be required so that it has at least two directors apart from Mr Wickins, both directors to be acceptable to the Commission, and GIBL is not thereafter to permit the number of its directors to fall below three;

b. That within 18 months of the date of the imposition of these conditions, Mr Wickins is to achieve the Certificate in Company Direction or Accelerated Certificate in Company Direction offered by the Institute of Directors in the UK, or an equivalent qualification in corporate governance acceptable to and agreed in advance in writing by the Commission, and is to deliver to the Commission evidence that he has achieved the said qualification;

c. That unless Mr Wickins achieves the qualification to which the previous paragraph refers by 31 July 2016, Mr Wickins is not to act as a director of GIBL unless and until he does achieve such qualification and has delivered to the Commission written evidence that he has achieved it.

5. To make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Merrien from performing any function in relation to business carried on by an entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws.

6. To disapply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciary Law in respect of Mr Merrien.

7. To make orders under the Protection of Investors Law, the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law and the Insurance Business Law prohibiting Mr Wickins from performing any function in relation to controlled investment business, any function in relation to an insurance intermediary conducting long-term insurance business and from performing the functions of controller, partner, director or manager in relation to a person licensed under the Insurance Business Law to conduct long-term insurance business.

8. To make a Public Statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable, necessary and proportionate to make this decision and impose these sanctions and penalties having concluded that Mr Merrien is not a fit and proper person to perform any function in relation to regulated business in the Bailiwick of Guernsey. The Commission's independent Senior Decision Maker found that Mr Merrien had failed to appreciate or properly to advise clients of GIBL of risks in connection with an investment into which they were persuaded to switch part of their pension funds, that he had recklessly promoted a high-risk investment which was unsuitable for retail investors, and that he had dishonestly diverted payments into his personal bank account. The contraventions by Mr Merrien as an Authorised Insurance Representative were very serious, and were exacerbated by his failures to deal openly and cooperatively with the Commission in the course of its investigation or to accept responsibility for what he has done.

The Commission also concluded that GIBL and Mr Wickins had failed in material respects to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law and the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law, and that Mr Wickins should not perform any function in relation to controlled investment or long-term insurance business. There was no criticism of Mr Wickins in connection with general insurance business.
Financial Penalties

The financial penalties imposed on Mr Wickins and GIBL reflect a 20% discount because they accepted the sanctions proposed to be imposed on them within 7 days of the notice issued by the Commission's Senior Decision Maker indicating the sanctions he was minded to impose.

The Commission considers that the contraventions by Mr Merrien, exacerbated by his failure to take responsibility for exposing clients of GIBL to undue risk in connection with a significant part of their pension portfolios, and by his failure to deal with the Commission in an open and cooperative manner in the course of the Enforcement Proceedings, were very serious and would, taken in isolation and without having regard to the matters the Commission is required to take into account under section 11D(2)(e) of the Financial Services Commission Law, attract a significant financial penalty within the statutory maximum of £200,000.

Following an appeal by Mr Merrien to the Royal Court in which judgment handed down in private on 25 September 2015 and published on 9 June 2016 (David John Merrien v Cees Schrauwers (Chairman of the Financial Services Commission), Judgment 23/2016), and the Commission's subsequent appeal to the Guernsey Court of Appeal against parts of the Royal Court's judgment in which judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in private on 17 March 2016 and published on 9 June 2016 (Cees Schrauwers (Chairman of the Financial Services Commission) v David John Merrien, Judgment 24/2016), the question of what, if any, financial penalty should be imposed on Mr Merrien was remitted to the Commission for reconsideration.

By the time that the Commission came to reconsider the question of financial penalty, Mr Merrien had pleaded guilty to unrelated charges in the Royal Court, and had been sentenced to five concurrent terms of 4 years' imprisonment.

Mr Merrien is serving a custodial sentence. He has no material income and no substantial assets from which he would able to satisfy a financial penalty, and there is no prospect that he would be in a position to do so within the foreseeable future.

On 30 August 2016 the Commission decided that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to impose any financial penalty on Mr Merrien (and that in consequence a Public Statement should be published in this amended form).

BACKGROUND

GIBL was incorporated as a limited company in Guernsey on 8 July 2010 and was licensed on 21 July 2010 under the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law to operate as an insurance intermediary for personal lines and commercial insurance.

On 21 July 2011, the licence for GIBL was extended to long term life insurance products under the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law.

On 10 August 2011, GIBL became licensed under the Protection of Investors Law to carry out the restricted activities of Advising and Promotion in connection with Category 1 controlled investment business.

At material times Mr Wickins and Mr Merrien were Directors and the full time employees of GIBL. Mr Wickins was the Managing Director, Money Laundering Reporting Officer and had day-to-day responsibility for the general insurance business of GIBL. Mr Merrien was the Compliance Officer and had day-to-day responsibility for the long-term insurance and controlled investment business of GIBL.

Mr Merrien was also the Authorised Insurance Representative ("AIR") in respect of long-term insurance business and provided advice to clients on long term insurance and controlled investment products, including personal pensions and recommending investment products in respect of pension contributions.

GIBL employed a part time consultant to peer review the activities of Mr Merrien.

GIBL was visited in October 2013 by the Commission's Conduct Unit as part of a thematic review of advice given by insurance and investment intermediaries. That visit identified serious concerns with regard to regulatory compliance. A significant number of clients had received unsuitable investment advice from Mr Merrien, and it appeared that the advice provided was not truly independent. The Unit's report found that record keeping in respect of client files was weak, written 'advice' held on file was not advice but merely a summary of what was discussed with the client, and there was no evidential documentation pertaining to recommended switches between personal pensions and GIBL's own branded Retirement Annuity Trust Schemes. The concerns arising from that visit were referred to the Enforcement Division.

FINDINGS

As a result of the Commission's enquiries, the Commission found that:

Mr Merrien

• Mr Merrien failed to take proper account of the financial interests of GIBL's clients and the information held by GIBL as to their financial needs and appetite for risk.

• Mr Merrien recommended that clients switch a significant portion of their investment portfolio into a specific Investment Fund ("the Fund"), for which Mr Merrien received significant amounts of commission into his personal bank account without the knowledge of GIBL.

• Mr Merrien did not provide clients with an appropriate amount of information regarding the recommendation to invest in the Fund.

• The advice given to GIBL clients by Mr Merrien was not suitable to the relevant clients' needs in that the Fund recommended was higher risk than those clients' stated cautious investment outlook.

• Mr Merrien failed properly to inform himself about the risks of the Fund and either chose to ignore the risk associated with an investment into the Fund or had failed to avail himself with an appropriate amount of information prior to making any recommendation.

• Mr Merrien stated that he had not reviewed the scheme documentation which showed that it is a high risk and speculative investment vehicle and also stated that investors should be prepared to lose all of their capital.

• The investment advice given by Mr Merrien to invest in the Fund was neither i) impartial nor ii) independent.

• Mr Merrien caused GIBL to breach a condition of its licence regarding the removal of records from GIBL's premises.

Mr Merrien's behaviour is considered to be very serious. It was found that he is not a fit and proper person to perform any function within the regulated sectors of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and he has accordingly been prohibited from carrying on any such function.

Guernsey Insurance Brokers Limited

• GIBL and its Board failed to ensure it had adequate systems of control in place in relation to its controlled investment and long-term insurance business, which was being conducted solely by Mr Merrien. This included failing to:

a) discuss investment and long-term insurance business at board meetings;

b) review the Fund adequately or be conversant with the risks associated with an investment into the Fund before allowing it to be recommended to GIBL's clients;

c) have systems of control in place so that it was aware that Mr Merrien was recommending the Fund to all of GIBL's investment and long-term insurance clients;

d) have adequate systems of control in place so that all advice provided by Mr Merrien was subject to independent review;

e) manage the conflict of interest between Mr Merrien acting as compliance officer for GIBL and his being the sole person providing investment advice to clients in respect of long term business.

Mr Wickins

• Mr Wickins failed to appreciate the responsibility of a licensee to make appropriate enquiries before appointing an AIR (Mr Merrien).

• Mr Wickins permitted Mr Merrien to carry on his activities effectively unsupervised.

• Mr Wickins was a member of a board of directors which met only infrequently, and was the managing director of a licensed firm which did not have appropriate systems and controls in place.

• Mr Wickins had placed complete reliance on Mr Merrien as GIBL's AIR. Both directors of GIBL had, in effect, acted in silos in respect of the general insurance, long-term insurance and controlled investment business activities undertaken by GIBL.

• Mr Wickins became aware from a meeting with one of the clients that Mr Merrien had encouraged them to switch to an unsuitable investment into the Fund, and even if up to that time he had not appreciated that Mr Merrien was offering the Fund to all GIBL's clients, he ought then to have looked into Mr Merrien's activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The Commission concluded that the Directors of GIBL had not discharged their duties in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law. Mr Wickins did not undertake his duties as a director with adequate competence and soundness of judgement. The Commission also concluded that Mr Wickins and Mr Merrien had not acted with skill, prudence and integrity in accordance with the regulatory requirements as set out in section 2(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law.

Mr Merrien is not a Fit and Proper person having regard to the factors set out in section 1 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Investors Law, in particular:

• His probity, competence, soundness of judgement for fulfilling his responsibilities;
• The diligence with which he is fulfilling those responsibilities; and
• The interests of clients or investors being jeopardised.

GIBL, principally due to the actions of Mr Merrien for which it was vicariously responsible, breached the following regulatory requirements referred to in paragraph 2.(2) of Schedule 4 of the POI Law in respect of the suitability of advice provided to GIBL's long-term and controlled investment business clients:

Principles of Conduct of Finance Business

Principle 1 A licensee should observe high standards of integrity and fair dealing in the conduct of its business.

Principle 2 A licensee should act with due skill, care and diligence towards its customers and counterparties.

Principle 3 A licensee should either avoid any conflict of interest arising or, where a conflict arises, should ensure fair treatment to all its customers by disclosure, internal rules of confidentiality, declining to act, or otherwise. A licensee should not unfairly place its interests above those of its customers and, where a properly informed customer would reasonably expect that the firm would place his interests above its own, the firm should live up to that expectation.

Principle 4 A licensee should seek from customers it advises or for whom it exercises discretion any information about their circumstances and investment objectives which might reasonably be expected to be relevant in enabling it to fulfil its responsibilities to them.

Principle 5 A licensee should take reasonable steps to give a customer it advises, in a comprehensible and timely way, any information needed to enable him to make a balanced and informed decision. A licensee should similarly be ready to provide a customer with a full and fair account of the fulfilment of its responsibilities to him.

Principle 7 A licensee should observe high standards of market conduct, and should also comply with any code of standard as in force from time to time and issued or approved by the Commission.

Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2009

Rule 5.1.1 A licensee must observe the Principles in carrying on its controlled investment business.

Rule 5.2.2(a) A licensee, at the outset of its provision of advisory or discretionary investment services to a client, should ensure that it has obtained sufficient knowledge of the client to ensure that any advice or discretionary decision is suitable to the requirements of the client.

Rule 5.2.2(b) A licensee should establish and maintain systems to ensure that its employees do not procure, endeavour to procure or advise anyone to enter into a transaction if that employee is not competent to advise on that transaction or to assess its suitability for investors.

Rule 5.2.2(c) A licensee must take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not in the course of its controlled investment business –

(i) recommend an investment to a client; or
(ii) effect or arrange a discretionary transaction with or for any client,
(iii) unless the recommendation or transaction is suitable for him having regard to the facts disclosed by that client, the terms of any agreement with that client, and other relevant facts about the client of which the licensee is, or reasonably should be, aware.

Rule 5.2.3(d) A licensee must not recommend a transaction or investment strategy to a client or act as a discretionary manager for him unless it has taken reasonable steps to make him aware of the risks involved, including conflicts of interest.

Rule 5.3.8(b) A licensee must not:

(i) make a recommendation to a client to switch within or between a controlled investment; or
(ii) effect such a switch in the exercise its of discretion for a client,
unless it believes on reasonable grounds that the switch is justified from the client's viewpoint.

Rule 5.4.1 The licensee shall, if responsible for promotion and advertising, must:-

(a) ensure that any materials issued are clear, fair and not misleading; and
(b) take all reasonable steps with a view to ensuring that any form of promotion or advertising in a country or territory outside of the Bailiwick of Guernsey is in accordance with the laws and regulations in force in that country or territory.

Code of Conduct for Authorised Insurance Representatives

Principle 1 An insurance representative shall comply with the principles of the Code and at all times conduct business with utmost good faith and high standards of integrity, exercising due skill, care and diligence when dealing with clients.

Principle 2 An insurance representative shall in the conduct of his business, provide advice objectively and not act in any way which is contrary to this Code or any other relevant legislation or Code of Conduct or Practice.

Principle 27 Insurance representatives advising on long term insurance business shall, in addition to complying with section (A), adhere to the following:

(a) In order to be able to advise a client correctly, the insurance representative should ensure that he has sufficient knowledge of the legislation (including taxation legislation) affecting the products the client already owns or is considering purchasing. If he is unable to advise a client then he should inform the client and, if possible, refer the client to a person who can give him appropriate advice;

(b) the insurance representative shall not advise a client to convert, allow to lapse, cancel or surrender any long term insurance contract unless he can demonstrate the action to be in the best interests of the policyholder. If such action is advised then the advice should be fully documented in a written advice, a copy of which should be sent to the client.

Principle 28 Prior to the inception (or any other material change to the policy including cancellation) of the policy, the insurance representative shall:

(a) Take all reasonable steps to obtain and record information from the client concerning the personal and financial circumstances of that client necessary to give suitable advice.

(b) Provide the client with a copy of the written advice.

(e) Ensure that the client is warned of the possible penalties of early surrender. Where a terminal bonus maybe payable, emphasis that the policy will normally have to run its full term before the bonus becomes payable.

(f) In the case of long term insurance policies where the investment return is not guaranteed, explain that it is not guaranteed. Where a product purports to be guaranteed, explain any conditions or limitations applying to the guarantee. The insurance representative shall use his best endeavours to enable the client to understand the nature of any risks involved.

(i) Explain to the client the amount or percentage of commission that the licensee will receive as a result of the sale or variation of single premium insurance contracts, Traded Endowment Plans and any contract involving "gearing/leveraging" or, in respect of any other policy, when requested. Also, explain any charges (including bid-offer spread charges and cancellation charges) that will or maybe incurred.

(l) If using illustrations, projections and forecasts supplied by an insurer, ensure that the client is provided with all relevant documentation that has been supplied.

There is no criticism of Mr Wickins in connection with general insurance business carried on by GIBL. The criticisms are of his conduct as a director of a regulated firm, and the Commission has found that he does not yet have the competence to perform the functions of director, controller, partner or manager (or AIR) of a firm conducting long-term insurance or controlled investment business.

MITIGATING FACTORS

GIBL suspended Mr Merrien from his position as a director of GIBL when it became aware of the issues relating to the advice provided by Mr Merrien.

GIBL has surrendered its licences for conducting controlled investment business and long-term insurance business and arranged for the transfer of the clients to another insurance and investment intermediary.

Mr Wickins and GIBL have, at all material times, co-operated and assisted fully with the Commission's enquiries.

Mr Martyn Paul Gordon

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended (the "POI Law"),
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc, (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended (the "Fiduciaries Law"),
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended (the "IMII Law"),
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994, as amended (the "Banking Law"), and
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended (the "Insurance Business Law")

Mr Martyn Paul Gordon ("Mr Gordon")

On 17 August 2015 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

1. to impose a financial penalty of £45,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Gordon;

2. to prohibit Mr Gordon from performing any function under the POI Law, the Fiduciaries Law, the Banking Law, the IMII Law, and the Insurance Business Law for a period of 14 years;

3. to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

4. to disapply the exemption set out in Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Gordon.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr Gordon failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 (minimum criteria for licensing) of the Fiduciaries Law [see (i) below] by actions he undertook whilst employed as a Director of a licensee.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is that;

In May 2015 the Commission became aware that Mr Gordon had been dismissed as a Director from a licensee for 'an act of gross misconduct'.

FINDINGS

As a result of its enquiries, the Commission found that:

Mr Gordon was dismissed for the deliberate misappropriation of client funds involving the transfer of £1,000,000 between two unrelated trusts between the period of October 2014 and March 2015 and;

Mr Gordon admitted to transferring a total of £114,839.90 from four unrelated entities to pay the legal fees of another client who had made allegations against the licensee in relation to a trust structure they managed. Mr Gordon stated he had not told anyone at the licensee about this agreement.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all material times, Mr Gordon was co-operative with the Commission and assisted with its enquiries.

Mr Gordon has made a substantial financial contribution in order to rectify losses and costs incurred by the licensee.

Mr Gordon has not made any personal financial gain out of the transactions.

In reaching its decision, the Commission has taken into account that Mr Gordon agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

(i) And also Schedule 4 of the POI Law, Schedule 4 of the IMII Law, Schedule 3 of the Banking Law and Schedule 7 of the Insurance Business Law,
sets out the minimum criteria under these laws.

Provident Trustees (Guernsey) Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law"
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended ("the Fiduciaries Law")
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended ("the Regulations")

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook")


Provident Trustees (Guernsey) Limited ("the Licensee")


Mr William Hunter ("Mr Hunter")
Mr Andrew King ("Mr King")
Mrs Lesley Chapman ("Mrs Chapman") (collectively "the Directors")

On 18 January 2016 the Commission decided:

• to impose a financial penalty of £42,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee;

• to impose a financial penalty of £18,375 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Hunter;

• to impose financial penalties of £10,500 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on each of Mr King and Mrs Chapman;

• to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee and the Directors failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing as set out in Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law due to failure to implement appropriate and effective policies, procedures and controls to mitigate the financial crime risks to which the business could be exposed.

In addition, the Commission considered that the Directors have demonstrated a lack of probity, competence and soundness of judgement which is taken into account when considering whether a director is a fit and proper person in order to meet the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law. The fact that Mr Hunter acted for a period as the Licensee's Compliance Director and Money Laundering Reporting Officer resulted in a higher financial penalty being imposed on him.

BACKGROUND

The Licensee was visited by the Commission's Financial Crime Supervision and Policy Division in October 2014 and as a result was subsequently referred to the Enforcement Division who conducted a further on-site visit in January 2015.

Fundamental failings were identified as a result of these visits regarding the Licensee's anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing systems and controls, particularly with respect to relationships assessed as high risk involving Politically Exposed Persons ("PEPs") or linked to sensitive jurisdictions. These failings, if they had materialised, could potentially have caused considerable reputational damage to the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

The failings were compounded by the fact that the Commission had previously visited the Licensee in 2009 and 2011 and similar failings were identified, despite the Licensee having been required to undertake remedial action following the 2009 on-site visit.

It was identified that the remedial measures committed to as a result of previous visits had not been actioned appropriately in all instances. The Licensee's policies and procedures established to forestall, prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing had not been implemented effectively and the result was that the Licensee and, as a consequence the Bailiwick were exposed to the risks of money laundering.

As a consequence of the Licensee's failure to prevent a recurrence of the issues highlighted following the on-site visit in 2009, the Commission concluded that the Directors have not fulfilled their corporate governance obligations as required by Regulation 15 of the Regulations.

FINDINGS

The Commission found that:

• The Licensee failed to conduct customer due diligence ("CDD") in accordance with the Regulations and the rules in the Handbook with regards to identifying and verifying all customers, in particular individuals to whom a Power of Attorney had been granted and potential beneficiaries of trusts; in addition, the Licensee acted on instructions from clients without full CDD being conducted on all relevant parties to the relationship;

• Despite having established policies and procedures to manage high risk relationships, the Licensee failed to demonstrate that adequate enhanced due diligence had been conducted on high risk clients, particularly with regard to clients who were PEPs or High Profile Individuals and had links to sensitive jurisdictions and those known to be associated with bribery and corruption risks. Where enhanced due diligence was ineffective, adverse information relating to clients was not picked up by the Licensee, leading to increased exposure to the risk of money laundering;

• The Licensee failed to ensure that the requirements of GFSC Instruction (Number 6) for Financial Services Businesses dated 11 November 2009 were applied fully to its existing customers by failing to satisfy itself that CDD information appropriate to the assessed risk was held in respect of each business relationship;

• The Licensee failed to ensure that the requirements of GFSC Instructions (Numbers 9-12) for Financial Services Businesses in force between 9 March 2010 and August 2011 were applied to its business by failing to ensure that enhanced due diligence was undertaken and special attention given to an existing business relationship;

• The Licensee failed to effectively monitor on-going activity which led to the inability to effectively review risk assessments;

• The Licensee failed to effectively scrutinise unusual transactions;

• The Licensee failed to evidence its consideration of the suspicion reporting requirements on several occasions as well as documenting reasons for delays in making disclosures to the Financial Intelligence Service;

• The Directors allowed themselves to be led by dominant clients and the client directors placed reliance upon conversations and meetings with clients in person as sufficient to satisfy enhanced due diligence requirements, particularly in regard to source of funds ("SOF") and source of wealth ("SOW") where the client was classed as high risk but documentation was not obtained to evidence that SOF/SOW had been established.

As a result, it is the conclusion of the Commission that the business of the Licensee has not been conducted in a prudent manner, having taken into account that its systems and controls did not enable it to comply with its duties under the Regulations and Handbook as set out in Schedule 1 to the Fiduciaries Law.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all times the Directors co-operated fully with the Commission. The Directors agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties.

Notice to clients of Provident Financial Services Limited

The enforcement action referred to in this statement does not relate to the services provided by Provident Financial Services Limited which was subject to an on-site visit from the Commission in October 2014 but which was not referred to the Enforcement Division.

End of statement

Mr Rudiger Michael Falla, Mr Richard Garrod, Mr Leslie Hilton, Mr Geoffrey Robert Le Page, Mr Kenneth Richard Leslie Forman

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended (the "Fiduciaries Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended (the "POI Law")
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the "IMII Law"),
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 (the "Banking Law") and
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 (the "Insurance Business Law") (together "the Regulatory Laws")
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended (the "Regulations")

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (the "Handbook")

Mr Rudiger Michael Falla – Executive Director ("Mr Falla")
Mr Richard Garrod - Executive Director ("Mr Garrod")
Mr Leslie Hilton – Executive Director ("Mr Hilton")
Mr Geoffrey Robert Le Page – Executive Director ("Mr Le Page")
Mr Kenneth Richard Leslie Forman – Non-Executive Director ("Mr Forman")
(together "the Directors")

On 24 August 2015 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

• to impose financial penalties of £50,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on each of Mr Falla, Mr Garrod, Mr Hilton and Mr Le Page;

• to impose a financial penalty of £10,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Mr Forman;

• to make orders under the Regulatory Laws prohibiting Mr Falla, Mr Hilton and Mr Le Page from performing the functions of director, controller, partner and money laundering reporting officer in relation to business carried on by an entity licensed under the Regulatory Laws for a period of 5 years from the date of this public statement;

• to disapply the exemption set out in Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Falla, Mr Hilton and Mr Le Page from the date of this public statement;

• to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Directors failed to fulfil the fit and proper requirements as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (minimum criteria for licensing) to the Fiduciaries Law*.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is as follows.

Messrs Falla, Garrod, Hilton and Le Page are executive directors and controllers of Confiànce Limited ("Confiànce"), a company licensed under the Fiduciaries Law. Mr Forman is a non-executive director of Confiànce.

Confiànce was visited by the Financial Crime Supervision and Policy Division of the Commission in April 2015. The findings from the visit were referred to the Enforcement Division.

FINDINGS

Significant failings were identified as a result of the April 2015 visit regarding Confiànce's anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing systems and controls. These failings, if they had materialised, could potentially have caused considerable reputational damage to the Bailiwick of Guernsey. In particular, the Commission found that the Directors had failed to ensure that Confiànce:

• undertook and regularly reviewed relationship risk assessments in accordance with Regulation 3(2);

• always took reasonable measures to identify and verify customers, beneficial owners and underlying principals, persons purporting to act on behalf of the customer or obtain information on the purpose and intended nature of each business relationship, as required by Regulation 4;

• always undertook enhanced customer due diligence on customers assessed as high risk, as required by Regulation 5;

• performed ongoing and effective monitoring of its existing business relationships, as required by Regulation 11; and

• had appropriate and effective procedures and controls to ensure compliance with requirements to make disclosures under the Disclosure (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2007 and the Terrorism and Crime (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as required by Regulation 12(f).

The Commission had previously visited Confiànce in 2010 and identified similar failings as those identified in the April 2015 visit. Confiànce was required to undertake remedial action following the 2010 on-site visit.

A further on-site visit in 2013 resulted in the appointment of an independent person to review Confiànce's monitoring arrangements and governance arrangements against the Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance. The independent review identified a number of issues to be remedied.

The April 2015 on-site visit identified that findings from the 2010 and 2013 visits had not been actioned appropriately in all instances.

As a consequence of the above failures identified during the April 2015 visit and the failure to address the issues highlighted following the on-site visits in November 2010 and 2013, the Directors have not taken responsibility for the review of Confiànce's compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, as required by Regulation 15.

By failing to ensure that Confiànce's policies and procedures for forestalling, preventing and detecting money laundering and terrorist financing are appropriate and effective, the Directors have failed to understand the legal and professional obligations incumbent upon them. In addition, by failing to remedy deficiencies identified in 2010 and 2013, the Directors have acted without sound judgement and have not fulfilled their responsibilities with the diligence expected of directors.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all times the Directors co-operated fully with the Commission. The Directors agreed to settle at a very early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalties.

* And also Schedule 4 to the POI Law, Schedule 4 to the IMII Law, Schedule 3 to the Banking Law and Schedule 7 to the Insurance Business Law, sets out the minimum criteria under these laws.

Guernsey Financial Consultants Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law")

Guernsey Financial Consultants Limited ("GFC")

On 27 February 2015 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

1. to impose a financial penalty of £42,000* under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on GFC and;

2. to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that GFC and its Directors failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 4 of the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law by not complying at all times with The Conduct of Business Rules (the "Rules"), The Code of Conduct for Authorised Insurance Representatives (the "AIR Code"), The Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance (the "Corporate Governance Code") and The Principles of Conduct of Finance Business (the "Principles").

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions:

Four routine on-site visits conducted at GFC between 2003 and 2012 identified issues requiring action to be undertaken to address deficiencies. In July 2012 GFC was visited by the Insurance Division as part of a thematic review of advice given by insurance intermediaries. As a result of the review, a further thematic visit was carried out to GFC by the Conduct Unit in October 2013. The visit identified a number of concerns with regard to treatment of clients, including the obtaining of adequate information from clients, the provision of written information to clients and the systems and controls for record keeping and corporate governance. The concerns arising from the visit were referred to the Enforcement Division.

FINDINGS

As a result of its enquiries, the Commission found that:

• GFC failed to evidence that it obtained sufficient information about clients' financial and personal circumstances to adequately assess their ability and willingness to take risks. As a result it was not possible to assess whether the recommended products were suitable for the client and would enable them to meet their objectives;

• GFC failed to evidence its research of the marketplace prior to making recommendations to clients. A high number of recommendations were made regarding a small number of product providers without sufficient evidence to demonstrate that other products had been considered;

• GFC was unable to demonstrate that explanations of products and the risks, charges and commission payments involved had been consistently provided in sufficient detail and in a way the client was likely to understand;

• GFC did not keep and properly maintain adequate accounting and other records of its business;

• Insufficient information was found on client files to demonstrate the rationale for early surrender and replacement of policies;

• In addition, the Commission had previously raised concerns with GFC on a number of occasions and over a significant period of time, regarding the lack of client information on file, the reasons for recommendations and the suitability of the products recommended but GFC failed to prevent such issues from recurring;

• the Board of Directors of GFC failed to effectively direct and supervise the affairs of the business and to implement effective compliance procedures.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all material times, the directors of GFC were open and co-operative with the Commission and have assisted with its enquiries.

In reaching its decision, the Commission has taken into account that the directors of GFC have undertaken to arrange, in principle, for the transfer of its clients to another licensee, thereby maintaining the interests of the clients, having decided to voluntarily surrender its licence under the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law.

* With the agreement of the Commission, GFC has arranged for an independent third party review of its client files to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person. The cost of this review up to an amount of £30,000 will be deducted from the financial penalty payable. GFC agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty.

Notice for clients

In the event that any clients of GFC may be concerned about their long-term insurance products, they should seek advice from a financial adviser before making a decision to sell as early encashment might not be the optimal choice for some products.

End of statement

Woodlock Financial Services (1998) Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Protection of Investors Law")
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Law")

Woodlock Financial Services (1998) Limited ("Woodlock")

On 30 January 2015 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

1. to impose a financial penalty of £28,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Woodlock and;

2. to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Woodlock failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Investors Law by not complying at all times with The Licensees (Conduct of Business) Rules, 2009, issued under the Protection of Investors Law.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is that;

Woodlock was visited by the Conduct Unit in October 2013, as part of a thematic review of advice given by insurance and investment intermediaries. The visit identified a number of concerns with regard to treatment of clients, including the obtaining of adequate information from clients, risk warnings to clients, the suitability of advice and record keeping. The concerns arising from the visit were referred to the Enforcement Division.

FINDINGS

As a result of its enquiries, the Commission found that:

• Woodlock failed to evidence that its advisers obtained sufficient knowledge of the clients and did not document the information in a readily accessible manner;

• Client files did not contain sufficient information regarding the client's financial circumstances to evidence that the advice given was suitable for the client;

• As a result of the above, it was not possible to assess whether the products recommended were suitable having regard to the facts disclosed by the client;

• In addition, the Commission had previously raised concerns with Woodlock over the lack of client information on file and the suitability of the products recommended but Woodlock failed to prevent such issues from recurring;

• In written advice Woodlock informed clients that it had compared the whole of the marketplace using a research tool prior to making a recommendation. However, only a pre-selected range of products was considered. In addition, a risk profiling tool used as one part of the assessment of clients' attitude to risk was not used specifically in the way it was represented to clients;

• Woodlock did not keep and properly maintain records relating to its controlled investment business;

• Woodlock failed to retain responsibility for the compliance function which it outsourced to a third party.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all material times, the directors of Woodlock were co-operative with the Commission and assisted with its enquiries.

In reaching its decision, the Commission has taken into account that Woodlock put in place a remediation plan to address the issues raised. As a result of the remediation work, Woodlock implemented a new risk profiling system to assist in assessing clients' attitude to risk, made improvements to the form of recording information obtained from clients on file and made changes to the way in which information regarding product research was presented to clients.

In addition, the directors of Woodlock have undertaken to arrange, in principle, for the transfer of its clients to another licensee, thereby maintaining the interests of the clients, having decided to voluntarily surrender its licences under the Protection of Investors and Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries Laws. The financial advisers of Woodlock have arranged to continue to act under the management of another licensee.

Woodlock agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty.

Notice for clients

In the event that any clients of Woodlock may be concerned about their investments, they should seek advice from a financial adviser before making a decision to sell as early encashment might not be the optimal investment choice for some investments. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission's investigation did not cover mortgage advice which is not a regulated activity.

End of Statement

Ahli United Bank (UK) PLC, Guernsey Branch

​The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 as amended
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 as amended ("the Regulations")

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook")

Ahli United Bank (UK) PLC, Guernsey Branch (the "Licensee")

On 30 October 2014 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

• to impose a financial penalty of £70,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee; and

• to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Licensee had failed to ensure that the outsourced compliance arrangements which were applied to its business were appropriate and effective to mitigate the financial crime risks to which the business could be exposed.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is as follows.

The Licensee has operated in Guernsey since 21 September 2000 and since 26 July 2001 under a Banking Administration Agreement with a Guernsey Service Provider.

The Financial Crime Division of the Commission conducted an Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism ("AML/CFT") on-site visit to the Licensee in March 2014 and, as a result of the findings of that visit, subsequently conducted a follow-up visit in conjunction with the Commission's Banking and Insurance Supervision and Policy Division between the end of April and beginning of May 2014. As a result of the findings of the March and April/May 2014 visits, the case was referred to the Commission's Enforcement Division.

The Commission identified a number of areas of non-compliance by the Licensee with the requirements of the Regulations and the rules in the Handbook. The breaches appear to have arisen due to the Licensee failing to ensure that the AML/CFT policies, procedures and controls being applied to its business were applied consistently to its customer base and that the reporting and reviews in its business were sufficiently effective.

FINDINGS

The Commission found that:

• inadequate customer due diligence ("CDD") was being conducted on customers as a result of reliance on CDD and risk assessments conducted by Ahli United Bank (UK) PLC, London, without verifying that these had been undertaken in compliance with the Regulations and rules in the Handbook;

• the Licensee had failed to ensure that customer risk assessments were undertaken in accordance with Regulation 3(2), as a result of which reliable risk profiles could not be formed, expected transaction activity gauged and the purpose and intended nature of the relationship understood with sufficient detail;

• customer risk reviews, which should have brought to the Licensee's attention the extent to which CDD deficiencies existed, had not been conducted or were deemed inadequate by the Commission;

• the Licensee failed to ensure that the requirements of GFSC Instruction (Number 6) for Financial Services Businesses dated 11 November 2009 were applied fully to its existing customers by failing to satisfy itself that CDD information appropriate to the assessed risk was held in respect of each business relationship; and

• the Licensee failed to ensure that ongoing and sufficiently effective enhanced monitoring was undertaken in accordance with Regulation 11 of the Regulations, particularly in the case of Politically Exposed Persons ("PEPs").

Due to the risks in relation to the Licensee's customer base, a significant number of which are high risk and PEP-associated, together with the non-face to face nature of its business activities, these breaches are considered to be serious.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all times the directors of the Licensee co-operated fully with the Commission and in reaching its decision the Commission recognises that the Licensee has put in place a comprehensive AML/CFT Risk Mitigation Programme to address the risks identified by the Commission, as well as to review more broadly the Licensee's compliance arrangements.

The Licensee has undertaken to commission an independent review of its AML/CFT compliance arrangements to be completed expeditiously to ensure that those arrangements meet the regulatory standards required in the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

The Licensee agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty.

End of statement

The Channel Islands Stock Exchange

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("The Financial Services Commission Law")

The Channel Islands Stock Exchange, LBG.

1. The Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the "Commission") is established pursuant to the terms of the Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 and its functions include the supervision of financial services in or from within the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

2. On 21 October 1998, the Commission licensed the Channel Islands Stock Exchange, LBG ('the CISX') under the Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, s. 4 to carry on the restricted activity of operating an investment exchange.

3. In February 2012 the Commission commenced an investigation into the CISX (the "Investigation") in relation to transactions in the listed securities of Arch Guernsey ICC Limited or its incorporated cells, which transactions had been implicated in possible market manipulation and other forms of irregular trading (the "Arch Transactions").

4. The Commission's established procedures provided for decisions as to whether or not to impose sanctions in response to an enforcement recommendation to be taken by a Commissioners' decisions committee, consisting of a number of Commissioners. However in this case, a former director of CISX had also been the Chairman of the Commission.

5. The Commission was concerned to ensure that, despite this unusual circumstance, it would be able to take a decision as to whether or not to impose any sanction in response to the Investigation in a way that was transparent, dispassionate and wholly procedurally fair.

6. Accordingly, in October 2013 once the initial evidence gathering process was completed, Commission senior staff sought advice from senior London Counsel as to whether enforcement action was appropriate. The Commission then sought and obtained from the Royal Court a declaration as to the scope of its powers to appoint an alternate decision-maker. Pursuant to that declaration the Commission:


6.1. Appointed an advisory committee consisting of HM Procureur and the Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales to recommend a Queen's Counsel suitable to be appointed as decision maker; and

6.2. Appointed the duly recommended Queen's Counsel as an officer of the Commission and delegated to him the function of deciding whether or not to impose any sanction on the CISX and related individuals.


7. On 20 December 2013 the Commission's senior staff issued a draft Enforcement Recommendation.
The Commission invited the CISX and other interested parties to consider the Enforcement Recommendation.

8. On 31 January 2014 the Commission and the CISX entered into a settlement agreement. In consideration of the Commission's agreement to take no further action against CISX pursuant to the Enforcement Recommendation, the CISX:


8.1. Admitted that it was seriously at fault in relation to the events to which the Enforcement Recommendation related; and

8.2. Accepted and paid a financial penalty (as provided for under Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, s. 11D) in the sum of £190,000.


9. Under the settlement agreement, the Commission reserved, amongst other rights, the right to pursue enforcement action against other parties as appropriate.

10. In January 2014 Commission senior staff received preliminary responses from the former Chief Executive to the Enforcement Recommendation. These preliminary responses were made and accepted without prejudice to the right to make formal submissions to a decision-maker.

11. By July 2014 Commission senior staff, supported by London-based counsel had completed the further investigations necessary in response to the preliminary responses and information received. The senior staff concluded that further enforcement activity was unlikely to be appropriate.

12. The Commission then appointed the decision-maker to sit as a case-review panel and to conduct a case review to determine (including in the light of the view of the Commission's senior staff) whether or not any enforcement action should be taken.

13. Following the completion of the case-review panel, the Investigation is complete. The Commission's findings are as follows:


13.1 The Commission is satisfied that the former Chief Executive did not breach any regulatory requirement in the Enforcement Recommendation, and that the Investigation has revealed nothing that would justify any action in relation to her. She has throughout been and remains a fit and proper person in good standing.

13.2 The Commission confirms that its Investigation has revealed nothing that would justify any action in relation to any present or former Non-Executive Directors of the CISX. Those individuals have throughout been and remain fit and proper persons in good standing.

13.3 The Commission confirms that its Investigation has revealed nothing that would justify any action in relation to any present or former officer of the CISX. Those individuals have throughout been and remain fit and proper persons in good standing.

Willow Trust Limited

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses, Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended ("the Fiduciaries Law")
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 ("the Regulations")

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook")

The Finance Sector Code of Corporate Governance ("the Corporate Governance Code")

Willow Trust Limited ("Willow")

On 17 June 2014 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

1. to impose a financial penalty of £30,000 under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on Willow and;

2. to make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Willow displayed systemic failings in its anti-money laundering procedures, policies and controls including corporate governance failings and therefore failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing set out in Schedule 1 of the Fiduciaries Law.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is that;

Willow was visited by the Financial Crime and Authorisations Division in April 2014 and subsequently by the Enforcement Division in May 2014.

FINDINGS

As a result of the April and May 2014 visits, the Commission found that:

• Willow's relationship risk assessments considered the identity of the customers, beneficial owners and underlying principals but insufficient consideration was given to the nature of the products or services provided to the customer, the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or the type, volume and value of activity contrary to Rule 56 of the Handbook. Willow also failed to establish the source of funds and source of wealth for high risk customer relationships contrary to Regulation 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Regulations and Rule 184 of the Handbook.

• Willow failed to review the risk assessments of its business relationships with sufficient regularity contrary to Regulation 3(2)(b) and conduct ongoing CDD as part of its monitoring procedures to ensure that it was aware of any changes in the development of the business relationship contrary to Rule 286 of the Handbook.

• The Board was aware of the issue of the increasing backlog of file reviews and obtained the advice of external compliance consultants to advise on effecting improvements to its procedures to seek to ensure its compliance with its regulatory measures. However this failed to address the existing issues adequately.

• As a result of the above, Willow was unable to adequately scrutinise transactions in accordance with the requirements of Rule 276 of the Handbook.

• Willow failed to advise the Commission of the material failures to comply with the provisions of the Regulations and Rules in the Handbook and the serious breaches of its policies, procedures and controls, contrary to Rule 30 of the Handbook.

MITIGATING FACTORS

At all times the Directors of Willow co-operated fully with the Commission and in reaching its decision the Commission has taken into account that Willow has put in place a remediation plan to address the issues highlighted by the end of September 2014. In 2009 Willow appointed external compliance advisers who consistently reported to the Board that the Company continued to remain compliant with its regulatory obligations. Notwithstanding, the Board of Willow acknowledges that it remains responsible for the review of its compliance with the Regulations as required by Regulation 15. Willow agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in setting the financial penalty.

Generali Worldwide Insurance Company Limited

The Financial Services Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended ("the Insurance Law")The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007, as amended ("the Regulations")
The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook")

Generali Worldwide Insurance Company Limited ("Generali Worldwide")

On 15 November 2013 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £150,000 on Generali Worldwide under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law; and

2. To make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

BACKGROUND

Following an on-site visit in August 2011, the Commission undertook an extensive examination of Generali Worldwide's systems and controls.

REASONS

At various times during the period 2008 to 2010, failings in systems and controls occurred in the following areas:

The Licensed Insurers' Corporate Governance Code

Generali Worldwide did not comply with certain reporting requirements relating to its regulatory margin of solvency and on the adequate definition of an investment strategy. Thus, the summaries of adherence to the corporate governance principles submitted by Generali Worldwide for the years 2009 and 2010 were inaccurate.

The Regulations and Handbook

Generali Worldwide failed to comply with certain requirements related to the Relationship Risk Assessment and failed to notify its staff timely of a change in the Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

MITIGATING FACTORS

Since the on-site visit and the subsequent extensive examination, Generali Worldwide elaborated a risk mitigation plan, and implemented changes as a result in the processes and in the control functions that have addressed these failings. Moreover Generali Worldwide supported all the costs related to the examination performed by the Commission.

No policyholder has suffered actual loss as a result of the failures identified.

The Commission has taken Generali Worldwide's proactive approach to dealing and remediating with its concerns into consideration in determining the appropriate regulatory action.

Mr X

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended
The Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, as amended (together "the Insurance Laws")
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994, as amended ("the Banking Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, as amended ("the Protection of Investors Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses, Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000, as amended ("the Fiduciary Law")

Mr X

On 15 November 2013 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided*:

1. To make orders under the Insurance Laws, the Banking Law, the Protection of Investors Law and the Fiduciary Law ("the Laws") prohibiting Mr X from holding the position of director subject to regulation under any of the Laws (except for specified current directorships), from any compliance function or acting as Money Laundering Reporting Officer within a person licensed under the Laws for a period of five years;

2. To impose a financial penalty of £10,000 on Mr X under Section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law; and

3. To make this public statement under Section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Mr X's actions failed to meet the fit and proper requirements for a person involved in regulated undertakings.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is that Mr X allowed an individual, who had been charged with money laundering offences, to be a sole signatory on the bank account of a company controlled by Mr X, who was aware that the individual had been charged with the money laundering offences when he allowed the individual to become a signatory on the bank account.

Mr X showed a lack of sound judgement in allowing that individual to become a sole signatory on a company bank account controlled by him.

*On 28 June 2022, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission exercised its powers under section 135 of The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 to alter this public statement.

Directors of Kingston Management (Guernsey) Limited (in administration)

The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc. (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 ("the Fiduciary Law")
The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Financial Services Businesses) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007, ("the Regulations")

The Handbook for Financial Services Businesses on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing ("the Handbook")

PUBLIC STATEMENT RELATING TO:

THREE DIRECTORS

SUMMARY

On 24 May 2010 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided*:

  1. to impose financial penalties of £14,000 each on Mr Y and Mr Z and £7,000 on Mr X ("the Directors") under section 11D of The Financial Services Commission Law; and
  2. to make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission made these decisions having concluded that the Directors had failed to fulfil certain requirements imposed on them under the Fiduciary Law, the Regulations and the Handbook and to ensure, during their respective periods of appointment, that the fiduciary business referred to below fulfilled the requirements applicable to it.

BACKGROUND

The background to this decision is the Directors' conduct in relation to the fiduciary business of Kingston Management (Guernsey) Limited (now in administration) and its joint fiduciary licensees Kingston Trustees Limited, Wessex Holdings Limited, Oxford Investments Limited, Kendal Limited and Hawkshead Investments Limited (together referred to as "Kingston").

Kingston was formed in 1989 by a UK firm of accountants, which was its exclusive source of business introduction. Mr Y and Mr Z were appointed as directors in 1989. In October 2007, Mr X was recruited, and he was appointed as a director in the following month. Mr Z resigned as a director with effect from 31 December 2008.

Following the introduction of the Fiduciary Law, the Commission granted Kingston a full fiduciary licence in November 2001.

In February 2009, following an onsite inspection, the Commission raised serious issues over Kingston's compliance with the requirements of the Fiduciary Law, which had applied over the previous 8 years, and of the Regulations and the Handbook, which came into force in December 2007. The Commission was particularly concerned about management, control and compliance within Kingston and its handling of some high risk relationships.

Discussions ensued between the Commission and Kingston about further investigation and remedial action, but the Directors felt unable to obtain co-operation and financial resources from its shareholders to secure the necessary changes within Kingston's operations.

Mr Y and Mr X, as the current directors, applied to the Royal Court of Guernsey for an administration order in relation to Kingston Management (Guernsey) Limited, and on 8 September 2009 the Royal Court granted the application and appointed Alan Roberts and Adrian Rabet of Begbies Traynor as joint administrators.

REASONS

The Commission has not imposed any sanction in relation to Kingston itself, which is in administration and intends to surrender its fiduciary licence as soon as possible. Both the process of regulatory action and any resulting regulatory sanction could only detract from the joint administrators' work in administering and transferring client structures.

However, irrespective of Kingston's position, the Directors are, during the varying times of their appointments, responsible for the conduct of its business and this statement and the financial penalties recognise that responsibility. The Directors failed to ensure that Kingston:

  1. exercised adequate control over, and held adequate information on, trusts and companies under its management, as a fit and proper licensee is required to do under paragraph 5(3)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Fiduciary Law,
  2. undertook a risk assessment before forming a business relationship as required by Regulation 3(1)(c),
  3. undertook customer due diligence on beneficiaries of structures to which Kingston provided services constituting regulated fiduciary activities as required by Regulation 4(1)(3) and earlier provisions, verified the identity of beneficial owners of a company as required by Rule 106 of the Handbook, undertook customer due diligence on the donees of powers of attorney as required by Rule 112 of the Handbook, and carried out enhanced customer due diligence on beneficial owners as required by Regulation 7(1), and
  4. performed ongoing and effective monitoring of business relationships, as required by Regulations 11(1)(a) and (b).

These failings were noted on specific files and this statement does not suggest that they were endemic throughout Kingston's business. In order to ascertain whether that was the case, the Commission required Kingston to obtain an independent review of all its files, but administration intervened.

This statement does not amount to a public statement about the conduct of Kingston's parent and does not reflect its views.

MITIGATING FACTORS

In reaching these decisions the Commission has taken into account that:

  1. Mr X did not become a director of Kingston until November 2007, six weeks before the Regulations and the Handbook came into effect, and from that time made efforts to change Kingston's culture and procedures.
  2. Mr Z was a founding director but has not served as a director since December 2008.
  3. In August 2009 the board concluded that the task of meeting the licensing criteria and the requirements of the Regulations and the Handbook, for the type of client-base Kingston held, would require financial resources which Kingston could not obtain from its shareholders. The directors took a responsible course of action in seeking an administration order and, once that had been made, worked to assist the joint administrators to service and transfer client structures.
  4. The Directors experienced particular difficulties in Kingston's relationship with its parent and were unable to obtain the parent's cooperation in improving standards or obtaining the additional resources needed to service its client-base properly.

*On 7 January 2022, 28 February 2022 and 11 October 2022, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission exercised its powers under section 135 of The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 to alter this public statement.

 

Ms Pippa Marie Harbour

ON 22 OCTOBER 2009 THE GUERNSEY FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION DECIDED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF MS PIPPA MARIE HARBOUR:


The Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended ("the Financial Services Commission Law")
The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 as amended (the Protection of Investors Law")
The Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1994 as amended ("the Banking Law")
The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc. (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2000 as amended ("the Fiduciary Law")
The Insurance (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 as amended and The Insurance Managers and Insurance Intermediaries (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 as amended (together "the Insurance Laws")

PUBLIC STATEMENT RELATING TO THE PERSON KNOWN AS: MS PIPPA MARIE HARBOUR OF SHOREHAM LODGE, LA RUE DES VARENDES, CASTEL, GUERNSEY GY5 7RF

On 22 October 2009 the Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("the Commission") decided:

1. to make prohibition orders under the Protection of Investors Law, the Banking Law, the Fiduciary Law and the Insurance Laws. These orders prohibit Ms Harbour from acting as a director, controller, partner, manager, general representative or authorised insurance representative in:

a) a controlled investment business;

b) a deposit-taking business;

c) a fiduciary business which undertakes regulated activities; and

d) an insurance business or the business of an insurance manager or an insurance intermediary and

2. to make this public statement under section 11C of the Financial Services Commission Law.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that Ms Harbour was not a fit and proper person to be a director, controller, partner, manager, general representative or authorised insurance representative in a regulated financial services business in Guernsey.

BACKGROUND

The background to these decisions is that Ms Harbour provided false information to the Guernsey Financial Services Commission, including falsely claiming to hold a Master's degree in Business Administration and to be a member of the Securities and Investment Institute. Ms Harbour showed a lack of integrity in informing the Commission, in Personal Questionnaire forms and elsewhere, that she held those qualifications/memberships.

Ms Harbour also failed to disclose in Personal Questionnaire forms that she had previously been known by another name. She gave the Commission birth dates of 22 November 1960 and 22 November 1959 which are both at variance with records recording her birth, marriages and bonds relating to real property.

It is important for regulated financial services businesses and individuals working within them to be aware that false statements about qualifications or other matters that demonstrate a lack of integrity will be investigated and acted upon by the Commission.

The case also underlines the practical importance of financial services businesses meeting their employee screening obligations under the Bailiwick's anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism framework.

22 December 2009
Stephen Trevor
Director of Fiduciary and Intelligence Services
Guernsey Financial Services Commission

Notes:

  1. This is the first public statement made by the Commission under powers which came into effect in 2008.
  2. Ms Harbour will commit an offence if she performs or agrees to be employed as a director, controller, partner, manager, general representative or authorised insurance representative in relation to a regulated activity carried on by a regulated finance business in breach of the prohibition orders.
  3. Under the regulatory legislation, regulated finance businesses must take reasonable care to ensure that none of their functions, in relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity, is performed by a person who is prohibited from performing that function by a prohibition order.
  4. Any person with information to indicate that such an offence has been committed is asked to contact the Commission's Fiduciary and Intelligence Services Division.